IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


1.1 


11:25   imi  1.4 


■2.0 

m 

1.6 


Hiotographic 

^Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WIST  MAIN  STREIT 

WfBSTH,N.Y.  14580 

(7I6)S72.4S03 


4^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/iCIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  da  microreprodiictions  historiquas 


^ 


^ 


Tschnical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographlquee 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


n 


D 


n 


D 

n 


n 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I   Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagte 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurAe  et/ou  pellicuite 


I      I   Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


I      I   Coloured  maps/ 


Cartes  gtographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I   Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
ReliA  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  re  liure  serrAe  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intArieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  aJoutAes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais.  lorsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  Sxi  filmAes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplAmentaires: 


The 
tott 


L'institut  a  microfilm*  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  AtA  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  mAthode  normale  de  f ilmaga 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


I     I   Coloured  pages/ 


D 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagAes 

Pages  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaurtes  et/ou  pelliculAes 

Pcges  discoloured,  stained  or  foxei 
Pages  dAcolorAes,  tachetAes  ou  piquies 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachies 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualiti  inAgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


I — I  Pages  damaged/ 

I     I  Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~1  Pcges  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I     I  Pages  detached/ 

[^  Showthrough/ 

I     I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I     I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — 1  Only  edition  available/ 


The 
posi 
ofti 
film 


Orifl 

begl 

the 

sion 

otN 

firat 

•Ion 

orii 


The 
she! 
TINI 
whit 

Mf 

diffi 
entii 
beg 

right 
requ 
metl 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuiilet  d'errata,  une  pelure. 
etc.,  ont  At*  filmtes  A  nouveau  de  fapon  6 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  de  rMuction  indiqu*  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


^ 

12X 


16X 


aox 


24X 


28X 


32X 


Th«  eopy  film«d  h«r»  hat  btcn  raproduead  thanks 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

University  of  Cilgary 


L'axamplaira  filmA  f ut  raproduit  grica  h  la 
giniroaitA  da: 

University  of  Calgary 


Tha  Imagaa  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  baat  quality 
posslbia  eonaldaring  tha  condition  and  laglbillty 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  k'Mping  with  tha 
filming  contcact  spacifieationa. 


Original  copiaa  in  printad  papar  eovara  mrm  filmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  ending  on 
tha  laat  paga  with  a  printad  or  iliuatratad  impraa- 
sion.  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copiaa  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  Iliuatratad  impraa- 
slon,  and  anding  on  tha  laat  paga  with  a  printad 
or  iliuatratad  impraaston. 


Laa  imagas  suivantas  ont  AtA  raproduitas  avac  Is 
plus  grand  soin,  compts  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattat*  da  l'axamplaira  film*,  at  an 
conformit*  avac  laa  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 

Laa  axamplairas  originaux  dont  la  couvartura  an 
papiar  aat  imprimAa  sont  filmta  an  commanpant 
par  la  pramiar  plat  at  an  tarminant  soit  psr  la 
darnlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta 
d'Impraaaion  ou  d'illustration.  soit  par  la  sacond 
plat,  salon  la  caa.  Tous  las  autras  axamplairas 
originaux  sont  fllmte  sn  commandant  par  la 
pramlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  amprainta  . 
d'Impraaaion  ou  d'illustration  at  an  tarminant  par 
la  damlAra  paga  qui  comporta  una  talla 
amprainta. 


Tha  laat  racordad  frama  on  aach  microficha 
ahall  contain  tha  symbol  ^^^  (moaning  "CON- 
TtNUEO"),  or  tha  symbol  y  (maaning  "END"), 
whichavar  appliaa. 


Un  daa  symbolaa  suivanta  apparaftra  sur  la 
darnlAra  imaga  da  chaqua  microficha.  salon  la 
caa:  la  symbols  — ^  signifia  "A  SUIVRE  ",  la 
symbols  ▼  signifia  "FIN  ". 


Mapa.  plataa.  charta,  ate.,  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarant  raduction  ratioa.  Thoaa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axpoaura  ara  filmad 
baginning  in  tha  uppar  laft  hand  comar,  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  aa  many  framaa  aa 
raquirad.  Tha  following  diagrama  illuatrata  tha 
mathod: 


Laa  cartaa.  planchaa.  tablaaux,  ate  pauvant  dtra 
fllmte  i  daa  taux  da  reduction  diff*rants. 
Lorsqua  la  documant  ast  trop  grand  pour  dtra 
raproduit  9n  un  saul  clich*.  il  ast  f  ilm*  d  partir 
da  I'angla  sup^riaur  gaucha.  da  gaucha  A  droita. 
at  da  haut  an  baa,  an  pranant  la  nombra 
d'imagaa  nteaaaaira.  Laa  diagrammas  suivants 
llluatrant  la  mAthoda. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

-% 


-■m 


Pw 


# 


•4v 


*» 


,i^W 


**     . 


■:?«fr!/ 


/  :^ 


^# 


:  H-# 


r** 


'■* 


\ 


•-#:., 


A. 


'^.i,--' 


■#■ 


TiBrr urn 


j^W 


/^c/c^^c/:^'^^^ 


y 


CORRESPONDENCE 


BKTWEElf 


JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS,  ESQUIRE 


i  PRZIIDIKT   or    THE   DRITEO   STATES, 


AND 


SEVERAL  CITIZENS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 


* 


CONCERNINO    THE   CHARGE 


OF  A  DESIGN  TO  DISSOLVE  THE  UNION 


[-'■;      ALLEGED  TO  HAVE   EXISTED  IN  THAT  STATE. 


SBOOaiB    BBXTZOBT. 


•Ife 


Y 


i.  *^       Ronton:  ,. 

PRESS   OF   TUK   BOSTON   DAtT.V   ADVRUTfSER, 

Mui;ri.xxix,  '  Jv- 


i'    '¥'i^'. 


.  n  : 

1 


■',  'V 


"k 


.^i^: 


•il 


® 


® 


® 


® 


k 


® 


»t? 


it; 


® 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


J 


The  National  Intelligencer  of  the  21st  of  October  last,  con- 
tains a  statement  made  by  the  President  of  llie  United  States, 
and  published  by  his  authority,  in  which  he  denounces  ccrtiiiu 
citizens  of  Massachusetts,  as  having  been  engaged  in  n  design 
to  produce  a  dissolution  of  tha  Union,  and  the  cstiiblishinent  of 
a  separate  Confederation.  As  no  individual  was  named  in  that 
communication,  a  few  citizens  of  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  who 
supposed  that  they  or  their  friends  might  be  coiisidered  hy  flu 
public,  if  not  intended  by  Mr  Adams,  to  be  inipiicntcd  as  par- 
ties to  the  alleged  conspiracy,  Uiought  proper  to  address  to  him 
u  letter  dated  on  the  2()th  of  November,  asking  for  such  a  spe- 
cification of  the  charge  and  of  the  evidence  as  might  tend  to 
remove  suspicion  from  the  innocent,  and  to  exj)ose  the  guilty,  if 
any  such  there  were.  To  diis  letter  they  received  a  reply  from 
Mr  Adams,  dated  on  the  30th  of  December,  in  which  he  de- 
clines to  make  the  explanation  requested  of  him,  and  gives  his 
reasons  for  that  refusal. 

This  correspondence,  togetlier  with  the  original  communica- 
tion in  die  Nadonal  Intelligencer,  is  now  presented  to  the  pub- 
lic, accompanied  by  an  appeal  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  in  behalf  of  those  who  may  be  considered  as  implicated 
in  this  charge. 

If  the  result  should  be,  either  to  fix  a  stigma  on  any  citizens 
of  ]Massachusetts,  or  on  the  oUier  hand  to  exhibit  Mr  Adams 
as  the  audior  of  an  unfounded  and  calumnious  charge,  those 
who  have  made  this  publication  will  have  the  consolation  of  re- 
flecting that  it  is  not  they  who  began  this  controversy,  and  that 
they  are  not  answerable  for  its  result.  That  result  they  cheer- 
fully leave  to  an  impartial  and  discerning  public  ;  feeling  assur- 
ed that  the  most  thorough  investigation  will  serve  only  more 
fully  to  prove  the  futility  of  the  accusation. 


1 

''  '.I 


:jr^t 


ir 


.1 


FKOM  THE  NATIONAL  INTELMCJENCER  OF  OCT.  21,  1S28 


The  publication  of  a  letter  from  Mr  Jefferson  to  Mr  Giles, 
dated  the  25lh  of  December,  1825,  concerning  a  communica- 
tion made  by  Mr  Adams  to  Mr  Jefferson,  in  relation  to  the  eni- 
bargoof  1807,  renders  necessary  the  following  statement,  which 
we  are  authorized  by  Mr  Adams  to  make. 

The  indistinctness  of  the  recollections  of  jMr  Jefferson,  of 
which  his  letter  itself  feelingly  complains,  has  blended  together 
three  distinct  periods  of  time,  and  the  information,  which  he  did 
receive  from  INIr  Adams,  with  events  which  afterwards  occurred, 
and  of  which  Mr  Adams  could  not  have  informed  him.  It  for- 
tunately happens  that  this  error  is  apparent  on  the  face  of  the 
letter  itself.  It  says,  '  Mr  Adams  called  on  me  pending  the 
embargo,  and  while  endeavors  were  making  to  obtain  its  repeal.' 
He  afterwards  says,  that,  at  this  interview,  Mr  Adams,  among 
other  things,  told  him  that  '  he  had  information,  of  the  most  un- 
questionable certainty,  that  certain  citizens  of  the  Eastern  States, 
(I  think  he  named  I\lassnchusetts  particularly)  were  in  negotia- 
tion widi  agents  of  the  British  government,  the  object  of  which 
was  an  agreement  that  the  New-England  States  sliould  take  no 
further  part  in  the  ivar  then  going  on,''  Sic. 

The  embargo  was  enacted  on  the  22(1  of  December,  1807, 
and  repealed  by  the  non-intercourse  acton  the  1st  of  March, 
1S09.     The  war  was  dec'iied  in  June,  1812. 

In  August,  1800,  Mr  Aticas  embarked  for  Russia,  iicnrlv 
threc  years  before  the  Declariition  of  War,  and  did  not  return  to 
the  United  States  till  August,  1817,  nearly  thre^  years  after  the 
conclusion  of  the  peace. 

Mr  ]\Iadison  was  inaugurated  President  of  the  United  States, 
on  the  4th  of  March,  1809. 

It  was  impossible,  therefore,  that  Mr  Adams  could  have  given 
any  information  to  ?.Ir  Jefferson,  of  negotiations  by  citizens  of 
Massachusetts  with  British  agents,  (luring  the  war,  or  bavin"- 


ttiK'      ,  - 


6 


roIntioM  lo  it.     Mr  Aclaiiiu  iiuver  had  kiiowlcdgo  of  niiy  such 
m!!:f)liatioiis 

Tho  iiili  rvimv.  U)  wliiclj  Mr  JellLTsou  alliules,  took  place  on 
jIic  ir)tli  of  March,  IHOS,  pciidiiiu;  tho  t'inbargo;  but,  at  the  ses- 
sion of  Congress  before  tlie  substitution  for  it  of  the  non-inter- 
course act.  The  information  j^iven  by  Mr  Adams  to  Mr  Jeffer- 
son, had  only  an  indirect  reference  even  to  the  embargo,  and 
none  to  any  endeavors  for  obtaining  its  repeal.  It  was  the 
substance  of  a  letter  from  the  Governor  of  Nova  Scotia,  to  a 
person  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  written  in  tho  summer  of 
1 807,  and  before  the  existence  of  the  embargo ;  which  letter 
Mr  Adams  had  seen.  It  had  been  shown  to  him  without  any 
injunction  of  secrecy,  and  he  betrayed  no  confidence  in  commu- 
nicating its  purport  to  Mr  Jefferson.  Its  object  was  to  counte- 
nance and  accredit  a  calumny  then  extensively  prevailing,  among 
the  enemies  of  Mr  Jefferson,  and  tho  opponents  of  his  adminis- 
tration, that  he  and  his  measures  were  subservient  to  France  ; 
and  it  alleged  that  the  British  government  were  informed  of  a 
plan,  determined  upon  by  France,  lo  effect  the  conquest  of  tho 
British  jirovinces  on  this  Continent,  and  a  revolution  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  til'.!  United  States,  as  means  to  which  they  were  lirst 
to  produce  war  between  the  United  States  and  England.  From 
the  fact  that  the  Governor  of  Nova  Scotia  had  written  such  a 
letter  to  an  individual  in  Massachusetts,  connected  with  other  facts, 
and  with  tlie  movements  of  the  party  then  predominant  in  that 
State,  Mr  Adams  and  ^h  Jefferson  (hew  their  inferences,  which 
subsequent  events  doubtless  confirmed :  but  which  inferences 
neither  Mr  JefUnson  nor  Mr  Adams  then  communicated  to  each 
other.  This  was  the  only  confidential  interview  which,  during 
the  administration  of  Mr  Jefferson,  took  place  between  him  and 
Mr  Adams.  It  took  place  first  at  the  request  of  Mr  Wilson  Ca- 
rey Nicliohis,  then  a  member  of  the  House  of  Kcprosentalives  of 
tiie  United  States,  a  confidential  friend  of  Mr  Jefferson ;  next, 
of  Mr  Robiuson,  then  a  senator  from  Vermont;  and,  lastly,  of 
Mr  Giles,  then  a  senator  from  Virginia — which  request  is  the 
only  intervention  of  Mr  Giles  ever  known  to  Mr  Adams,  be- 
tween him  and  Mr  Jefferson.  It  is  therefore  not  surprising,  that 
MO  such  intervention  occurred  to  the  recollection  of  Mr  Jeffer- 
son, in  Dccemljcr,  1S2."). 

This  interview  wns  in  ISrarch,  ISOS.  In  May,  of  the  sr.nie 
year,  Mr  Adams  resigned  his  scat  in  the  senate  of  the  United 
States. 

At  tlie  next  session  of  Congress,  which  commenced  in  Nov- 
ember, ISOS,  Ml-  Adams  was  a  private  citizen,  residing  at 
Boston.     The  embargo  wns  still  in  force ;    operating  with  ex- 


Jik^ 


Ill 


trenie  pressure  upon  the  inteiebts  of  the  people,  and  was  wielded 
as  a  most  effective  instrument  by  tlie  party  prevaiiiu!^  in  the 
State,  against  the  administration  of  Mr  Jefierson.  The  people 
were  constantly  instigated  to  forcible  resistance  against  it ;  and 
juries  after  juries  acquitted  the  violators  of  it,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  was  unconstitutional,  assumed  in  the  face  of  a  solemn  de- 
cision of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States.  A  separation 
of  djo  Union  was  openly  stimulated  in  the  public  prints,  and  a 
Convention  of  Delegates  of  the  New  England  Stales,  to  meet  at 
New  Haven  was  intended  and  proposed. 

Mr  Giles,  and  several  otiier  members  of  Congrcsi.i,  dining  this 
session,  wrote  to  Mr  Adams  confidential  letters,  informing  him 
of  the  various  measures  proposed  as  reinforcements  or  siibslitutei; 
for  die  embargo,  and  soliciting  his  opinions  upon  the  subject.  lie 
answered  those  letters  with  frankness,  and  in  confidence.  Ho 
earnestly  recommended  the  substitution  of  the  non-intercourse  for 
the  embargo  ;  and,  in  giving  his  reasons  for  this  preference,  was 
necessarily  led  to  enlarge  upon  the  views  and  purposes  of  cer- 
tain leaders  of  die  party,  which  had  the  management  of  the  State 
Legislature  in  their  hands.  He  urged  that  a  continuance  of  the 
embargo  much  longer  would  certainly  be  met  by  forcible  resis- 
tance, supported  by  the  Legislature,  and  probably  by  the  Judi- 
ciary of  the  State.  That  to  quell  that  resistance,  if  force  should 
be  resorted  to  by  the  Government,  it  would  produce  a  civil  war; 
and  dial  in  that  event,  be  had  no  doubt  the  leaders  of  the  party 
would  secure  the  co-operation  with  them  of  Great  Britain. — 
That  their  object  was  and  had  been  for  several  years,  a  disso- 
lution of  the  Union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  separate  Con- 
federation, he  knew  from  unequivocal  evidence,  although,  not 
proveable  in  a  Court  of  Law ;  and  that,  in  the  case  of  a  civil 
war,  die  aid  of  Great  Britain  to  eflect  that  purpose  would  be  as 
surely  resorted  to,  as  it  would  be  indispensably  necessary  to  the 
design. 

That  these  letters  of  Mr  Adams  to  Mr  Giles,  and  to  other 
members  of  Congress,  were  read  or  shewn  to  INlr  Jefierson,  he 
never  was  informed.  They  were  written,  not  for  communica- 
tion to  him,  but  as  answers  to  the  letters  of  his  correspondents, 
members  of  Congress,  soliciting  his  opinion  upon  measures  in 
deliberation  before  them,  and  upon  which  they  were  to  act.  He 
wrote  them  as  the  solicited  advice  of  friend  to  friend,  both  ardent 
friends  to  the  Administration,  and  to  their  country.  He  wrote 
them  to  give  to  the  supporters  of  the  Administration  of  Mr  Jef- 
ferson, in  Congress,  at  that  crisis,  the  best  assistance,  by  his  in- 
formation and  opinions,  in  his  power.  He  had  certainly  no 
objection  that  they  should  be  communicated  to  Mr  JefTerson ; 


hut  tins  was  neither  his  intention  nor  desire.  In  ono  of  the 
letlors  to  Mr  Giles  he  repeated  an  ussiiraiicu!,  which  iiu  had  ver- 
bally given  him  during  the  preceding  session  of  Congress,  that 
he  had  for  his  support  of  Mr  Jelfcrson's  Administration  no  per- 
sonal or  interested  motive,  and  no  favor  to  ask  of  him  whatever. 
That  thf.'se  letters  to  Mr  Giles  wore  hy  him  coninunii(;ated  to 
Mr  Jefferson,  Mr  Adams  believes  from  the  import  of  this  letter 
from  Mr  .lellerson,  now  first  published,  and  which  has  elicitetl 
this  statement.  Ho  believes,  likewise,  that  other  letters  from 
him  to  other  members  of  Congress,  written  during  the  same  ses- 
sion, and  upon  the  same  subject,  were  also  communicated  to  him ; 
and  that  their  contents,  after  a  lap.«e  of  seventeen  years,  were 
blended  confusedly  in  his  memory,  first,  with  the  information 
given  by  ^Ir  Adams  to  him  at  their  interview  in  March,  180H, 
nine  months  before  ;  and  next,  with  events  which  occurred  dur- 
ing die  subsequent  war,  and  of  which,  however  natural  as  a  scf|uel 
to  tl;e  information  and  opinions  of  i\lr  Adams,  communicated  to 
him  at  those  two  preceding  periods,  he  could  not  have  received 
the  information  from  him. 


tlio 
vin- 
tluit 
pcr- 
:vcr, 
il  to 
ettcr 
:itecl 
Froin 
scs- 
liini; 
ivcrc 
uioii 
SOH, 
(liir- 

{|  lo 
lived 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Boston,  November  26,  1B28. 

TO  TUB  HONORABLE  JOHN  aUINCY  ADAMS. 

Sir, 

The  undersigned,  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  residing  in  Bos- 
ton and  its  vicinity,  take  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  on  the 
subject  of  a  statement  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of 
the  21st  of  October,  and  which  purprts  to  have  been  communi- 
cated or  authorised  by  you. 

In  that  statement,  after  speaking  of  those  individuals  in  this 
State,  whom  the  writer  designates  as  '  certain  leaders  of  the  party 
which  had  the  management  of  the  State  Legislature  in  their 
hands'  in  the  year  1808,  and  saying  that  in  the  event  of  a  civil 
war,  he  (Mr  Adams)  *  had  no  doubt  the  loaders  of  the  party 
would  secure  the  co-operation  with  them  ot  Great  Britain,'  it  is 
added,  '  That  their  object  was  and  had  been  for  several  years, 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  separate 
Confederation,  ho  knew  from  unequivocal  evidence,  although 
not  proveable  in  a  court  of  law.' 

This,  sir,  is  not  the  expression  of  an  opinion  as  to  the  nature 
and  tendency  of  the  measures  at  that  time  publicly  adopted,  or 
proposed,  by  the  party  prevailing  in  the  State  of  Massachu- 
setts. Every  citizen  was  at  liberty  to  form  his  own  opinions  on 
that  subject ;  and  wc  cheerfully  submit  the  propriety  of  those 
measures  to  the  judgment  of  an  impartial  posterity.  But  the 
sentence  which  we  have  quoted  contains  the  assertion  of  a  dis- 
tinct fact,  as  one  within  your  own  knowledge.  We  are  not  per- 
mitted to  consider  it  as  the  unguarded  expression  of  irritated  feel- 
ings, hastily  uttered  at  a  time  of  great  political  excitement. 
Twenty  years  have  elapsed  since  this  charge  was  first  made,  in 
private  correspondence  with  certain  members  of  Congress ;  and 
It  is  now  deliberately  repeated,  and  brought  before  the  Public 
under  the  sanction  of  your  name,  as  being  founded  on  unequivo- 
cal evidence,  within  your  knowledge. 

We  do  not  claim  for  ourselves,  nor  even  for  those  deceased 
friends,  whose  representatives  join  in  this  address,  the  title  of 
leaders  of  any  party  in  Massachusetts  ;  but  we  were  associated 


«*.>-^<4fr«*f«i.'i 


10 


ii 


f 


ill  politics  with  the  party  prevailing  here  at  the  period  referred 
to  in  the  statement  above  mentioned,  some  of  us  concurred  in  all 
the  measures  adopted  by  that  party  i  and  we  all  warmly  ap- 
proved and  supported  those  measures.  Many  of  our  associates 
who  still  survive,  are  dispersed  throughout  Massachusetts  and 
Maine,  and  could  not  easily  be  convened  to  join  us  on  the  pre- 
sent occasion.  We  trust,  however,  that  you  will  not  question 
our  right,  if  not  for  ourselves  alone,  at  least  in  behalf  of  the  high- 
ly valued  friends  with  whom  we  acted  at  that  time,  and  especial- 
ly of  those  of  them  who  are  now  deceased,  respectfully  to  ask 
from  you  such  a  full  and  precise  statement  of  the  facts  and  evi- 
dence relating  to  this  accusation,  as  may  enable  us  fairly  to  meet 
and  answer  it. 
The  ol^ect  of  this  letter  therefore  is,  to  request  you  to  state. 
First,  Who  are  the  persons,  designated  as  leaders  of  the  par- 
ty prevailing  in  Massachusetts  in  the  year  1S08,  whose  object, 
you  assert,  was  and  had  been  for  several  years,  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  separate  Confederation  ? 
and 

Secondly,  The  whole  evidence  on  which  that  charge  is 
founded. 

It  is  admitted  in  the  statement  of  the  charge,  that  it  is  not 
proveable  in  a  court  of  law,  and  of  course  that  you  are  not  in 
possession  of  any  legal  evidence  by  which  to  maintain  it.  The 
evidence  however  must  have  been  such  as  in  your  opinion  would 
have  been  pronounced  unequivocal  by  upright  and  honorable 
men  of  discriminating  minds ;  and  we  may  certainly  expect  from 
your  sense  of  justice  and  self  respect  a  full  disclosure  of  all  that 
you  possess. 

A  charge  of  this  nature,  coming  as  it  does  from  the  first  mag- 
istrate of  the  nation,  acquires  an  importance  which  we  cannot  af- 
fect to  disregard ;  and  it  is  one  which  we  ought  not  to  leave  un- 
answered.  We  are  therefore  constrained,  by  a  regard  to  our 
deceased  friends  and  to  our  posterity,  as  well  as  by  a  sense  of 
what  is  due  to  our  own  honor,  most  solemnly  to  declare,  that 
we  have  never  known  nor  suspected  that  the  party  which  pre- 
vailed in  Massachusetts  in  the  year  1808,  or  any  other  party  in 
this  State,  ever  entertained  the  design  to  produce  a  dissolution 
of  die  Union,  or  the  establishment  of  a  separate  Confederation. 
It  is  impossible  for  us  in  any  other  manner  to  refute,  or  even  to 
answer  this  charge,  until  we  see  it  fully  and  particularly  stated, 
and  know  the  evidence  by  which  it  is  to  be  maintained. 

The  undersigned  think  it  due  to  themselves  to  add,  that  in 
making  this  application  to  you,  they  have  no  design  nor  wish  to 


11 


produce  an  effect  on  any  political  party  or  question  whatever. 
Neither  is  it  their  purpose  to  enter  into  a  vindication  or  discus- 
sion of  the  measures  publicly  adopted  and  avowed  by  the  per- 
sona against  whom  the  above  charge  has  been  made.  Our  sole 
object  is  to  draw  forth  all  the  evidence  on  which  that  charge  is 
founded,  in  order  that  the  public  may  judge  of  its  application 
and  its  weight. 

We  are  Sir,  with  due  respect, 

Your  obedient  servants. 


is 


I 


H.  G.  OTIS, 

ISRAEL  THORNDIKE, 
T.  H.  PERKINS, 
WM.  PRESCOTT, 

DANIEL  SARGENT, 

JOHN  LOWELL, 
WM.  SULLIVAN, 


CHARLES  JACKSON, 
WARREN  DUTTON, 
BENJ.  PICKMAN, 
HENRY  CABOT, 

Son  of  the  late  George  Cabot. 

C.  C.  PARSONS, 

Son  of  Theophilui  Panoni,  Eiq.  deceased. 

FRANKLIN  DEXTER, 

Son  of  the  late  Samaei  Dexter. 


U 


! 


i 


MR  ADAMS'  REPLY  TO  THE  PRECEDING  LETTER. 


•J. 

\ 


I,. 


f 


Washington,  20th  December,  1828. 

Messrs  H.  G.  Otis,  Israel  Thorndike,  T.  H.  Perkins,  William  Pres- 
cott,  Daniel  Sargent,  John  Lowell,  William  Sullivan,  Charles  Jack- 
son, Warren  Dutton,  Benjamin  Pickman,  Henry  Cabot,  C.  C.  Parsons 
and  Franklin  Dexter — 

Gentlemen, 

I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  2Gth  ult.  and  recogniz- 
ing among  the  signatures  to  it,  names  of  persons  for  whom  a 
long  and  on  my  part  uninterrupted  friendship,  has  survived  all 
the  bitterness  of  political  dissension,  it  would  have  afforded  me 
pleasure  to  answer  with  explicitness  and  candor  not  only  those 
persons,  but  each  and  every  one  of  you,  upon  the  only  questions 
in  relation  to  the  subject  matter  of  your  letter,  which  as  men  or 
as  citizens  I  can  acknowledge  your  right  to  ask  ;  namely  whether 
the  interrogator  was  himself  one  of  the  persons,  intended  by  me 
in  the  extract  which  you  have  given,  from  a  statement  authorized 
by  me  and  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  21st  Octo- 
ber last. 

Had  you  or  either  of  you  thought  proper  to  ask  me  this  ques- 
tion, it  would  have  been  more  satisfactory  to  me  to  receive  the 
inquiry  separately  from  each  individual,  than  arrayed  in  solid 
phalanx,  each  responsible  not  only  for  liimself  but  for  all  the 
others.  The  reasons  for  this  must  be  so  obvious  to  persons  of 
your  intelligence,  that  I  trust  you  will  spare  me  the  pain  of  de- 
tailing them. 

But,  Gentlemen,  this  is  not  all.  You  undertake  your  inquisi- 
tion, not  in  your  own  names  alone ;  hut  as  the  representatives  of 


\ 


13 


.1 

I 


SR. 


res- 
ck- 
)ns 


iiz- 
a 

all 
me 
3se 
)ns 

oi- 
ler 
ne 
ed 
to- 

s- 
le 
id 
le 
of 


si- 
of 


a  grcal  and  powerful  party,  dispersed  throughout  tlie  States  of 
Massachusetts  and  Maine  :  A  party  commanding,  at  the  time 
to  which  your  inquiries  refer,  a  devoted  majority  in  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  then  United  Commonwealth  j  and  even  now,  if  judg- 
ed of  by  the  character  of  its  volunteer  delegation,  of  great  influ- 
ence and  respectability. 

I  cannot  recognize  you,  on  this  occasion,  as  the  representa- 
tives of  that  party,  for  two  reasons — first,  because  you  have 
neither  produced  your  credentials  for  presenting  yourselves  as 
their  champions,  nor  assigned  satisfactory  reasons  for  presenting 
yourselves  without  them.     But,  secondly,  and  chiefly,  because 
your  introduction  of  that  party  into  this  question  is  entirely  gra- 
tuitous.   Your  solemn  declaration  that  you  do  not  know  that  the 
federal  or  any  other  party,  at  the  time  to  which  my  statement  re- 
fers, intended  to  produce  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the 
formation  of  a  new  confederacy,  does  not  take  the  issue,  which 
your  own  statement  of  my  charge  (as  you  are  pleased  to  con- 
sider it)  had  tendered.   The  statement  authorized  by  me,  spoke, 
not  of  the  federal  party,  but  of  certain  leaders  of  tliat  party.    In 
my  own  letters  to  the  Members  of  Congress,  who  did  me  the 
honor  at  that  agonizing  crisis  to  our  National  tJnion,  of  soliciting 
my  confidential  opinions   upon  measures  under  deliberation,  I 
expressly  acquitted  the  great  body  of  the  federal  party,  not  only 
of  participating  in  the  secret  designs  of  those  leaders,  but  even 
of  being  privy  to  or  believing  in  their  existence.     I  now  cheer- 
fully repeat  that  declaration.    I  well  know  that  the  party  were 
not  prepared  for  that  convulsion,  to  which  the  measures  and  de- 
signs of  their  leaders  were  instigating  them ;  and  my  extreme 
anxiety  for  the  substitution  of  the  nonintercourse  for  the  embar- 
go arose  from  the  imminent  danger,  that  the  continuance  and 
enforcement  of  this  latter  measure  would  promote  the  views  of 
those  leaders,  by  goading  a  majority  of  the  people  and  of  the 
legislature  to  the  pitch  of  physical  resistance,  by  State  authority, 
against  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  Union ;  the  only  effec- 
tual means  by  which  the  Union  could  be  dissolved.    Your  mod- 
esty has  prompted  you  to  disclaim  the  character  of  leaders  of 
the  federal  party  at  that  time.    If  I  am  to  consider  this  as  more 
than  a  mere  disavowal  of  form,   I  must  say  th.  *  the  charge, 
which  I  lament  to  see  has  excited   so  much  of  your  sensibility, 
had  no  reference  to  any  of  you. 

Your  avowed  object  is  controversy.     You  call  for  a  precise 
state  of  facts  and  evidence ;  not  affecting,  so  far  as  you  know, 
any  one  of  you,  but  to  enable  you  fairly  to  meet  and  to  answer  it. 
And  you  demand. 


14 


'I 


1 .  Who  are  the  persons  designated  as  leaders  of  the  party 
prevailing  in  Massachusetts  in  the  year  1808,  whose  object  1 
assert  was,  and  had  been,  for  several  years,  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  separate  confederacy?  and 

2.  The  whole  evidence,  on  which  that  charge  is  founded. 
You  observe  that  it  is  admitted,  in  the  statement  of  the  charge, 

that  it  is  not  proveable  in  a  court  of  law,  and  your  inference  is, 
that  I  am  of  course  not  in  possession  of  any  legal  evidence,  by 
which  to  maintain  it.  Yet  you  call  upon  me  to  name  the  per* 
sons  affected  by  the  charge ;  a  charge  in  your  estimate  deeply 
stigmatising  upon  those  persons ;  and  you  permit  yourselves  to 
remind  me,  that  my  sense  of  justice  and  aelf-respect  oblige  me 
to  disclose  all  that  I  do  possess.  My  sense  of  justice  to  you. 
Gentlemen,  induces  me  to  remark,  that  I  leave  your  self-respect 
to  the  moral  influences  of  your  own  mbds,  without  presuming  to 
measure  it  by  the  dictation  of  mine. 

Suppose,  then,  that  in  compliance  with  your  call,  I  should 
name  one,  two,  or  three  persons,  as  intended  to  be  included  in 
the  charge.  Suppose  neither  of  those  persons  to  be  one  of  you. 
You  however,  have  given  them  notice,  that  I  have  no  evidence 
against  them,  by  which  the  charge  is  proveable  in  a  court  of  law 
— and  you  know  that  I,  as  well  as  yourselves,  am  amenable  to 
the  laws  of  the  land.  Does  your  self-respect  convince  you  that 
the  persons  so  named,  if  guilty,  would  furnish  the  evidence 
against  themselves,  which  they  have  been  notified  that  I  do  not 
possess  1  Are  you  sure  that  the  correspondence,  which  would 
prove  their  guih,  may  not  in  the  lapse  ot  twenty-five  years  have 
been  committed  to  the  flames  ?  In  these  days  of  failing  and  of 
treacherous  memories,  may  they  not  have  forgotten  that  any 
such  correspondence  ever  existed  9  And  have  you  any  guar- 
antee to  offer,  that  I  should  not  be  called  by  a  summons  more 
imperative  than  yours,  to  produce  in  the  temple  of  justice  the 
proof  which  you  say  I  have  not,  or  be  branded  for  a  foul  and 
malignant  slanderer  of  spotless  and  persecuted  virtue  ?  Is  it  not 
besides  imaginable  that  persons  may  exist,  who  though  twenty- 
five  years  since  driven  in  the  desperation  of  disappointment,  to  the 
meditation  and  preparation  of  measures  tending  to  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union,  perceived  afterwards  the  error  of  their  ways,  and 
would  now  gladly  wash  out  from  their  own  memories  their  par- 
ticipation in  prdects,  upon  which  the  stamp  of  indelible  reproba- 
tion has  past?  Is  it  not  possible  that  some  of  the  conspi- 
rators have  been  called  to  account  before  a  higher  than  an 


I 


earthly  tribunal  for  all  tlie  good  and  evil  of  their  lives ;  and 


W".  > 


\ 


16 


whose  reputations  might  now  suffer  needlessly  by  the  disclosure  of 
their  names  ?  I  put  these  cases  to  you,  Gentlemen,  as  possible, 
to  show  you  that  neither  my  sense  of  justice  nor  my  self-respect 
does  require  of  me  to  produce  the  evidence  for  which  you  call, 
or  to  disclose  the  names  of  persons,  for  whom  you  have  and  can 
have  no  right  to  speak. 

These  considerations  appear  indeed  to  me  so  forcible  that  it 
is  not  without  surprise,  that  I  am  compelled  to  believe  they  had 
escaped  your  observation.  1  cannot  believe  of  any  of  you  diat 
which  I  am  sure  never  entered  the  hearts  of  some  of  you,  that 
you  should  have  selected  the  present  moment,  for  the  purpose  of 
drawing  me  ijito  a  controversy  not  only  with  yourselves,  but  with 
others,  you  know  not  whom— of  daring  me  to  the  denouncement 
of  names,  vvhicb  twenty  years  since  I  declined  committing  to  the 
ear  of  confidential  friendship ;  and  to  the  production  of  evi- 
dence which,  though  perfectly  satisfactory  to  my  own  mind,  and 
perfectly  competent  for  the  foundation  of  honest  and  patriotic 
public  conduct,  was  adequate  in  a  court  of  law  neither  to  the 
conviction  of  the  guilty,  nor  to  the  justification  of  the  accuser,  and 
so  explicitly  pronounced  by  myself. 

You  say  that  you  have  no  design  nor  wish  to  produce  an 
effect  on  any  political  party  or  question  whatever, — nor  to  enter 
into  a  vindication  of  the  measures  publicly  adopted  and  avowed 
bv  the  persons,  against  whom  the  above  charge  has  been  made. 
But  can  you  believe  that  this  subject  could  be  discussed  between 
you  and  me,  as  you  propose,  when  calling  upon  me  for  a  state- 
ment, with  the  avowed  intention  of  refuting  it,  and  not  produce 
an  effect  on  any  political  party  or  question  ?  With  regard  to 
the  public  measures  of  those  times  and  the  succeeding,  which 
you  declare  to  have  had  your  sanction  and  approbation,  it  needs 
no  disclosure  now,  that  a  radical  and  irreconcileable  difference 
of  opinion  between  most  of  yourselves  and  me  existed.  And 
can  you  suppose  that  in  disclosing  names  and  stating  facts, 
known  perhaps  only  to  myself,  I  could  consent  to  separate  them 
from  those  public  measures,  which  you  so  cordially  approved 
and  which  I  so  deeply  lamented  ?  Must  your  own  defence 
against  these  charges  forever  rest  exclusively  upon  a  solemn  pro- 
testation against  the  natural  inference  from  the  irresistible  ten- 
dency of  action  to  the  secret  intent  of  the  actor  ?  That  a  states- 
man who  believes  in  human  virtue  should  be  slow  to  draw  this 
inference  against  such  solemn  asseverations,  I  readily  admit: 
but  for  the  regulation  of  the  conduct  of  human  life,  the  rules  of 
evidence  are  widely  different  from  those,  which  receive  or  ex- 
clude testimony  in  a  court  of  law.     Even  there,  you  know,  that 


! 


16 


1^ 


H 


violent  presumption  is  equivalent,  in  cases  affecting  life  itself,  to 
positive  proof ;  and  in  a  succession  of  political  measures  through 
a  series  of  years«  all  tending  to  the  same  result,  there  is  an  inter- 
nal evidence,  against  which  mere  denial,  however  solemn,  can 
scarcely  claim  the  credence  even  of  the  charity,  that  believeth 
all  things. 

Let  me  add  that  the  statement  authorized  by  me,  as  publish- 
ed in  the  National  Intelligencer,  was  made,  not  only  without  the 
intention,  but  without  the  most  distant  imagination  of  offending 
you  or  of  injuring  any  one  of  you.  But,  on  the  contrary,  for  the 
purpose  of  expressly  disavowing  a  charge,  which  was  before  the 
public,  sanctioned  with  the  name  of  the  late  Mr  Jefferson,  im- 
puting to  certain  citizens  of  Massachusetts  treasonable  negotia- 
tions with  the  British  government  during  the  war,  and  express- 
ly stating  that  he  had  received  information  of  this  from  me.  On 
the  publication  of  this  letter,  I  deemed  it  indispensably  due  to 
myself,  and  to  all  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  not  only  to  deny 
having  ever  given  such  information,  but  all  knowledge  of  such  a 
fact.  And  the  more  so,  because  that  letter  had  been  published, 
though  without  my  knowledge,  yet  I  was  well  assured,  from  mo- 
tives of  justice  and  kindness  to  me.  It  contained  a  declaration 
by  Mr.  Jefferson  himself,  frank,  explicit  and  true,  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  motives  of  my  conduct,  in  all  the  transactions  of  my 
intercourse  with  him,  during  the  period  of  the  embargo.  This 
was  a  point  upon  which  his  memory  could  not  deceive  him,  a 
point  upon  which  he  was  the  best  of  witnesses ;  and  his  testimo- 
ny was  the  more  decisive  because  given  at  a  moment,  as  it 
would  seem,  of  great  excitement  against  me  upon  different  views 
of  public  policy  even  then  in  conflict  and  producing  great  exac- 
erbation in  his  mind.  The  letter  contained  also  a  narrative  of  a 
personal  interview  between  himself  and  me,  in  March,  1808, 
and  stated  that  I  had  then  given  him  information  of  facts,  which 
induced  him  to  consent  to  the  substitution  of  the  nonintercourse 
for  the  embargo ;  and  also  that  I  had  apprized  him  of  this  trea- 
sonable negotiation  by  citizens  of  Massachusetts,  to  secede  from 
the  Union  during  the  war,  and  perhaps  rejoin  after  the  peace. 
Now  the  substitution  of  the  iicnintercourse  for  the  embargo,  took 
place  twelve  months  after  this  interview,  and  at  a  succeeding 
session  of  Congress,  when  I  was  not  even  a  member  of  that 
body.  The  negotiation  for  seceding  from  the  Union  with  a  view 
to  rejoin  it  afterwards,  if  it  ever  existed,  must  have  been  during 
the  war.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  such  negotiation,  or  even  of 
such  a  design.     I  could  therefore  have  given  no  such  informa- 

tiOD. 


17 


But  in  giving  an  unqualificrl  denial  to  this  statement  of  Mr 
Jefferson,  and  in  showing  thiit  upon  the  face  of  the  letter  itself  it 
could  not  be  correct,  it  was  due  to  him  to  show,  that  the  mis- 
statement on  his  part  was  not  intentional ;  that  it  arose  from  an 
infirmity  of  memory,  which  the  letter  itself  candidly  acknowl- 
edged ;  that  it  blended  together  in  one  indistinct  ninss,  the  in- 
formation which  1  had  given  him  in  March,  1808,  with  the  pur- 
port of  confidential  letters,  which  I  had  written  to  his  and  my 
friends  in  Congress  a  year  after,  and  with  events,  projects,  and 
perhaps  mere  suspicions,  natural  enough  as  consequences  of  the 
preceding  times,  but  which  occurred,  if  at  all,  from  tliree  to  six 
years  later,  and  of  which  he  could  not  have  had  inlbrmation  from 
me.  The  simple  fact  of  which  I  apprized  Mr  Jefferson  was, 
that,  in  the  sun)mer  of  1807,  about  the  time  of  what  was  some- 
times called  the  affair  of  the  Leopard  and  the  Chesapeake,  I 
had  seen  a,  letter  from  the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia  to  a  person 
in  Massachusetts,  affirming  that  the  British  government  had  cer- 
tain information  of  a  plan  by  that  of  France,  to  conquer  the  Bri- 
tish possessions  and  effect  a  revolution  in  the  United  States,  by 
means  of  a  war  between  them  and  Great  Britain.  As 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  were  in  1807  at  peace, 
a  correspondence  with  the  governor  of  Nova  Scotia,  held 
by  any  citizen  of  the  United  States,  imported  no  violation 
of  law  ;  nor  could  the  correspondent  be  responsible  for  anything 
which  the  governor  might  write.  But  my  inferences  from  this 
fact  were,  that  there  existed  between  the  British  government 
and  the  party  in  Massachusetts  opposed  to  Mr  Jefferson,  a  chan- 
nel of  communication  ihrnngh  tlie  governor  of  Nova  Scotia, 
which  he  vv;is  exercising  to  inflame  their  hatred  against  France 
and  their  jealousies  against  their  own  gove'-nment.  The  letter 
was  not  to  any  leader  of  the  federal  party ;  but  I  had  no  doubt 
it  had  been  shewn  to  some  of  them,  as  it  had  been  to  me,  with- 
out injunction  of  secrecy ;  and,  as  I  supposed,  with  a  view  to 
convince  me  that  this  conspiracy  between  Napoleon  and  Mr 
Jefferson  really  existed.  How  that  channel  of  communication 
migin  be  further  used,  was  matter  of  conjecture ;  for  the  mission 
of  Mr  John  Henry  was  nine  months  after  my  interview  with  Mr 
Jefferson,  niiil  precisely  at  the  time  when  I  was  writing  to  ray 
friends  in  Congress  the  letters  urging  the  substitution  of  the  non- 
intercourse  for  the  embargo.  Of  Mr  Henry's  mission  I  knew 
nothing  till  it  was  disclosed  by  himself  in  1812. 

It  was  in  these  letters  of  1808  and  1809,  that  I  mentioned 
the  design  of  certain  leaders  of  the  federal  party  to  effect  a  dis- 
solution of  the  Union,  and  the  establishment  of  a  Northern  Con- 


4 


r> 


f 


1^ 


!h; 


18 


fcdcracy.  Tliis  design  had  been  formed,  in  the  winter  of  ISOS 
and  4,  iinmudiuteiy  niter,  and  as  a  consequence  of  the  acquisi- 
tion of  liouisiana.  Its  justifying  causes  to  those  wiio  entertain- 
ed it  were,  tiiat  tlie  annexation  of  Louisiana  to  the  Union  tran- 
scended the  consututional  powers  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States.  That  it  formed  in  fact  a  new  contederacy  to 
whichihe  Suites,  united  by  the  former  compact,  were  not  bound 
to  adhe're.  That  it  was  oppressive  to  tlie  interests  and  destruc- 
tive to  the  influence  of  the  Northern  section  of  the  confederacy, 
whose  riglit  and  duty  it  therefore  was  to  secede  from  the  new 
body  politic,  and  to  constitute  one  of  their  own.  This  plan  was 
so  lar  matured,  tiiat  the  proposal  had  been  made  to  an  individual 
to  permit  himself,  at  the  proper  time,  to  be  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  milhary  movements,  which  it  was  foreseen  would  be  ne- 
cessary for  carrying  it  into  execution.  In  all  this  there  was  no 
overt  act  of  treason.  In  the  abstriict  theory  of  our  government 
the  obedience  of  the  citizen  is  not  due  to  an  unconstitutional  law. 
He  nay  lawfully  resist  its  execution.  If  a  single  individual  un- 
dertakes this  resistance,  our  constitutions,  both  of  the  United 
States,  and  of  each  separate  State,  have  provided  a  judiciary 
power,  judges  and  juries,  to  decide  between  the  individual  and 
the  legislative  act,  which  he  has  resisted  as  unconstitutional. 
But  let  us  suppose  tlie  case  that  legislative  acts  of  one  or  more 
States  of  this  Union  are  past,  conflicting  with  acts  of  Congress, 
and  comrpanding  the  resistance  of  their  citizens  against  them, 
and  what  else  can  be  the  result  but  war, — civil  war  ?  and  is  not 
that  de  facto,  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  so  far  as  the  resisting 
States  are  concerned  ?  and  what  would  be  the  condition  of  every 
citizen  in  the  resisting  States  ?  Bound  by  the  double  duty  of  al- 
legiance to  the  Union,  and  to  the  State,  he  would  be  crushed 
between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone,  with  the  perform- 
ance of  every  civic  duty  converted  into  a  crime,  and  guilty  of 
treason,  by  every  act  of  obedience  to  the  law. 

That  the  power  of  annexing  Louisiana  to  this  Union  had  not 
been  delegated  to  Congress,  by  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  was  my  own  opinion ;  and  it  is  recorded  upon  the  jour- 
nals of  the  senate,  of  which  I  was  then  a  member.  But  far  iVcni 
thinking  the  act  itself  a  justifying  cause  for  secession  from  the 
Union,  I  regarded  it  as  one  of  the  happiest  events  which  had 
occurred  since  the  adoption  of  the  constitution.  I  regretted  that 
an  accidental  illness  in  my  family,  which  detained  me  on  my 
way  to  Washington  to  take  my  seat  in  the  senate,  deprived  me 
of  the  power  of  voting  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaties,  by 
which  tlie  cessiou  was  secured.    1  arrived  at  Washington  on  the 


•i 


i 


%■ 


19 


■ 


fourth  day  of  the  session  of  Congress,  and  on  entering  the  city, 
passed  by  the  secretary  of  the  senate,  who  was  going  from  the 
capitol  to  tile  president's  house,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
that  body  to  tlie  ratification. 

I  took  my  seat  in  the  senate  the  next  day.  Bills  were  imnie-^ 
diately  brought  into  Congress  making  appropiiations  to  the 
amount  of  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  for  carrying  the  convention 
into  cilect,  and  for  enabling  the  president  to  take  possession  of 
the  ceded  territory.  These  measures  were  opposed  by  all  the 
members  of  the  senate,  who  had  voted  against  the  ratifications  of 
tlie  conventions.  Tliey  were  warmly  and  cordially  supported 
by  me.  I  had  no  doubt  of  the  constitutional  power  to  make  the 
treaties.  It  is  expressly  delegated  in  the  constitution.  The 
powiT  of  making  tlie  stipulated  payment  for  the  cession,  and  of 
taking  possession  of  the  ceded  territory,  was  equally  unquestion- 
ed by  me ; — they  were  constructive  powers,  but  I  thought  them 
fairly  incidental,  and  necessarily  consequent  upon  the  power  t« 
make  the  treaty.  But  the  power  of  annexing  the  inhabitants  of 
Louisiana  to  the  Union,  of  conferring  upon  them,  in  a  mass,  all 
the  rights,  and  requiring  of  them  all  the  duties,  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  it  appeared  to  me  had  not  been  delegated  to 
Congress  by  the  people  of  the  Union,  and  could  not  have  been 
delegated  by  them,  without  the  consent  of  the  people  of  Louis- 
iana themselves.  I  diought  they  required  an  amendment  to  the 
constitution,  and  a  vote  of  the  people  of  Louisiana ;  and  1  offer- 
ed to  the  senate,  resolutions  for  carrying  both  those  measures  in- 
to effect,  which  were  rejected. 

It  has  been  recently  ascertained,  by  a  letter  from  Mr  Jeffersoa 
to  Mr  Dunbar,  written  in  July  1803,  after  he  had  received  the 
treaties,  and  convened  Congress  to  consider  them,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  treaties  could  not  be  carried  into  effect  without  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  :  and  that  the  proposal  for  such 
an  amendment  would  be  the  first  measure  adopted  by  them,  at 
tlieir  meeting.  Yet  Mr  Jefferson,  president  of  the  United  States, 
did  approve  the  acts  of  Congress,  assuming  the  power  which  ho 
had  so  recently  thought  not  delegated  1.)  thetn,  and  as  the  Ex- 
ecutive of  the  Union  carried  theiu  into  execution. 

Thus  Mr  Jefferson,  President  of  l\\e  United  States,  the  fede- 
ral members  of  Congress,  who  opposed  and  voted  against  the 
ratification  of  the  treaties,  and  myself,  all  concurred  in  the  opin- 
ion, that  the  Louisiana  cession  treaties  transcended  the  constitu- 
tional powers  of  the  government  of  the  United  States.  But  it 
was,  after  all,  a  question  of  constructive  power.  The  power  of 
making  the  treaty  was  expressly  given  without  limitation.    The 


r* 
^ 


i 


1 


1 


I  I ' 


1(1 


i 


i'f 


Hi 


■■xK 

W 


do 


sweoping  clause,  by  which  all  powers,  npcessary  and  proper  for 
carrying  into  effect  those  exprt'ssly  rit- legate*!,  may  be  under- 
stood as  unlimited.  It  is  to  be  presumed,  that  when  Mr  Jeffer- 
son approved  and  executed  the  acts  of  Congress,  assuming  the 
doubtl'ul  power,  he  had  brought  his  mind  to  acquiesce  in  this 
somewhat  latiiudinarian  construction.  I  op|)oscd  it  as  long  and 
as  far  as  my  opposition  could  avail.  1  acquiesced  in  it,  alter  it 
had  received  the  sanction  of  all  the  organized  authority  of  the 
Union,  and  the  tacit  acquiesence  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  and  of  Louisiana.  Since  which  lime,  so  far  as  this  pre- 
cedent goes,  and  no  farther,  I  have  considered  the  question  as 
irrevocably  settled. 

But,  in  reverting  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  all  our  con- 
stitutions, that  obedience  is  not  due  to  an  unconstitutional  Ihw, 
and  that  its  execution  may  be  lawfully  resisted,  you  must  admit, 
that  had  the  laws  of  Congress  for  annexing  lyxiisiana  to  the 
Union  been  resisted,  by  the  authority  of  one  or  more  States  of 
the  then  existing  confederacy,  as  unconstitutional,  that  resist- 
ance might  have  been  carried  to  the  extent  of  dissolving  the 
Union,  and  of  forming  a  new  confederacy  ;  and  that  if  the  con- 
sequences of  the  cession  had  been  so  oppressive  upon  New 
England  and  the  North,  as  was  apprehended  by  the  federal 
leaders,  to  whose  conduct  at  thiit  time  all  these  observations  re- 
fer, the  project  which  they  did  then  forn)  of  severing  the  Union, 
and  establishing  a  Northern  Confederacy  would  in  their  applica- 
tion of  the  abstract  principle  to  the  existing  state  of  things  have 
been  justifiable.     In  their  views,   therefore,  1  impute  to  them 
nothing  which  it  coidd  be  necessary  for  them  to  disavow ;  and, 
accordingly,  these  principles  were  distinctly  and  explicitly  avow- 
ed, eight  years  afterwards,  by  my  excellent  friend,  Mr  Quincy, 
in  his  speech  upon  the  admission  of  Louisiana,  as  a  State,  into 
the  Union.     Whether  he  had  any  knowl(;dge  of  the  practical 
project  of  180.3  and  4,  1  know  not;  but  the  argument  of  his 
speech,  in  which  he  referred  to  my  recorded  opinions  upon  the 
constitutional  power,  was  an  eloquent  exposition  of  the  justilying 
causes  of  that  project,  as  1  had  heard  them  detailed  at  the  time. 
That  project,  1  repeat,  had  gone  to  the  length  of  fixing  upon  a 
military  leader  for  its  execution  ;  and  although  the  circumstan- 
ces of  the  times  never  admitted  of  its  execution,  nor  even  of  its 
full  developement,  1  had  yet  no  doubt,  in  1808  and  1809,  and 
have  no  doubt  at  this  time,  that  it  is  tlu  Key  tt>  all  the  great  move- 
ments of  these   leaders  of  the  fede;  jl  party  in  New  England, 
from  that  time  forward,  till  its  fmal  catastrophe  in  the  Hartford 
Convention. 


\ 


^;„J*»- 


■-fi-n 


t-A' 


.iwt'j^'"^  '•;'-'ii^'< 


^^:f  ' 


21 


Gentlemen,  I  observe  among  the  sipers  of  your  letter,  the 
names  of  two  mentbeis  ol'  tliitt  Convention,  together  with  thnt  of 
tliti  son  of  its  president.  You  will  not  understand  me  as  ufHrm- 
nig,  that  eitlicr  of  you  was  privy  to  this  plan  of  military  ext^cu- 
tion,  in  1 804.  That  may  be  known  to  yourselves  and  not  to 
nie.  A  letter  of  your  6rst  signer,  recently  published,  has  dis- 
closed the  fact,  dial  he,  although  the  putative  was  not  the  real 
father  of  the  Hartford  Convention.  As  he,  who  has  hitherto 
enjoyed  unrivalled,  the  honors,  is  now  disposed  to  bestow  upon 
otiicrs  the  shame  of  its  paternity,  may  not  the  ostensible  and  the 
real  character  of  other  incidents  attending  it,  be  alike  diversified, 
so  that  the  main  and  nhimate  object  of  that  assembly,  though 
buiuiiing  in  splendor  from  its  acts,  was  yet  in  dim  eclipse  to  the 
vision  of  its  most  distinguished  members? 

However  this  may  be,  it  was  this  project  of  1803  and  4, 
wliiili,  from  the  time  when  I  first  took  my  seat  in  the  seriate  of 
the  United  States,  alienated  me  from  the  secret  councils  ol  those 
leaders  of  the  federal  party.  I  was  never  initiated  in  them.  I 
approved  and  supported  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana ;  and  from 
the  first  moment  that  the  project  of  separation  was  made  known 
to  me,  I  o|)posed  to  it  a  determined  and  inflexible  resistance. 

It  is.  well  known  to  some  of  you.  Gentlemen,  that  the  cession 
of  Louisiana  was  not  the  first  occasion  upon  which  my  duty  to 
my  coinitry  prescribed  to  me  a  course  of  conduct  different  from 
that  which  would  have  been  dictated  to  me  by  the  leaders  and 
(he  spirit  of  paity.  More  Utan  one  of  you  was  present  at  a 
meeting  of  menibers  of  the  INlassachusetts  Legislature  on  the 
27th  of  !Mny  1802,  the  day  after  I  first  took  my  seat  as  a  mem- 
ber of  that  legislatm-e.  A  proposal  then  made  by  me,  to  admit 
to  the  council  of  the  Commonweahh,  a  proportional  representa- 
tion of  the  minority  as  it  existed  in  the  two  houses,  has,  I  trust, 
ntn  hi'.eu  forgotten.  It  was  the  first  act  of  my  legislative  life, 
and  it  marked  the  principle  by  which  my  whole  public  career 
liHs  been  governed,  from  that  day  to  this.  My  proposal  was  iin- 
siiccessriil,  and  perhaps  it  forfeited  whatever  confidence  mi'rht 
havi-  been  otherwise  bestowed  upon  me  as  a  party  follower.  IMy 
confluct  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  with  regard  to  the 
i^ouisiana  cession,  was  not  more  acceptable  to  the  leaders  of  the 
federal  party,  and  some  of  you  may  perhaps  remember  thrt  it 
was  not  suffered  to  pass  without  notice  or  censure,  in  the  public 
federal  journals  of  die  time. 

With  regard  to  the  project  of  a  separate  Northern  Confede- 
racy, formed  in  the  winter  of  1 S03  and  4,  in  consequence  of  the 
Louisiana  cession,  it  is  not  to  me  that  you  must  apply  for  copies 


4 


If  •, 


m 


{:   it 


r- 


H 


22 


of  llie  correspoiuloiice  in  wliicli  it  wns  contained.  To  tliat  and 
to  every  ntfier  project  of  disunion,  i  have  l)cen  constantly  op- 
posed. My  principles  do  not  admit  the  right  even  of  the  peo- 
ple, still  less  of  the  legislatin'e  of  any  one  State  in  the  Union,  to 
secede  at  pleasure  from  the  Union.  No  provision  is  mode  for 
the  exercise  of  this  rigiit,  either  hy  the  federal  or  any  of  the 
State  constitutions.  The  ant  of  exercising  it,  presupposes  a  <lc- 
parture  from  the  principle  of  conipact  and  a  resort  to  that  of  force. 

If,  in  the  exercise  of  their  respective  functions,  the  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial  authorities  of  the  Union  on  one  side,  and 
of  one  or  more  States  on  the  other,  are  brought  into  direct  colli- 
sion with  each  other,  the  relations  between  tlie  parties  are  no 
longer  those  of  constitutional  right,  but  of  independent  force. 
Each  party  const'iies  the  common  compact  for  itself.  The  con- 
structions are  irreconcilenhle  together.  There  is  no  umpire  be- 
tween them,  and  the  appeal  is  to  the  sword,  the  ultimate  arbiter 
of  right  between  independent  States,  but  not  between  the  mem- 
bers of  one  body  politic.  I  therefore  hold  it  as  a  principle  with- 
out exception,  that  whenever  the  constituted  authorities  of  a 
State,  authorize  resistance  to  any  act  of  Congress,  or  pronounce 
it  unconstitutional,  they  do  thereby  declare  thcnist  'ves  and  their 
Slate  quoad  hoc  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Union.  That  thcic  is  no 
supposable  case,  in  which  the  people  of  a  State  might  pince 
themselves  in  this  attitude,  by  the  primitive  right  of  insurrection 
against  oppression,  I  will  not  affirm  :  but  they  have  deli:gated  no 
suen  power  to  their  legislatures  or  their  judges ;  and  if  there  be 
such  a  right,  it  is  the  right  of  an  individual  to  commit  suicide — 
the  right  of  an  inhabitant  of  a  populous  city  to  set  fire  to  his  own 
dwelling  house.  These  arc  niy  views.  But  to  those,  who 
think  that  each  State  is  a  sovereign  judge,  not  only  of  its  own 
rights,  but  of  the  extent  of  powers  conferred  upon  the  general 
government  hy  the  people  of  the  whole  Union  ;  and  that  each 
State,  giving  its  own  construction  to  the  constitutional  powers  of 
Congress,  may  array  its  separate  sovereignty  against  every  act 
of  that  body  transcending  this  estimate  of  their  powers — to  say 
of  men  holding  these  principles,  that,  for  the  ten  years  from  1P(M 
to  1814,  they  were  intending  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the 
formation  of  a  new  Confedei-acy,  is  charging  them  with  nothing 
more  than  with  acting  up  to  their  principles. 

To  the  purposes  of  party  leaders  intending  to  accomplish  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  and  a  new  Confederacy,  two  postulates 
are  necessary.  First,  an  act  or  acts  of  Congress,  which  may 
be  resisted,  as  nmonstitutional ;  and,  secondly,  a  state  of  ex- 
citement among  the  people  of  one  or  more  States  of  the  Union 


4 


"^-F*»,» 


■■^,(»jf.*-'~   — '■***'»^'^i*=. 


-.iilRricntly  itiflimcd,  to  |)rn(!iico  iirts  of  tho  Sintc  Icuisl,itiirc3| 
toiiflictiii^j;  with  tho  nets  ol' ('()ii;/,r('vs.     licsoliitioiis  of  ihi-  Ii'ijis- 
liitiires  'It'iiying  the  powers  of  Cmii^iTss,  an;  tlif;  I'lrsl  stt.'|).s  in  this 
ninirh  to  di.  iinioii ;  but  they  avail  iiothir.p:,  widiotil  siihst'C|ii<'Ht 
aiul  'oi'i'cspondiii^  aclioii.     'i'h(^  aiiDtxatioii  of  Lotiisiniia  to  the 
l^iiiun  wns  l^olioved  to  he  iiiicniistilinioM;;!,  but  it  prodiiotMl  no  cx- 
(.'iteniont  to  rcsislinf'e  among  ihu  pcdplc.     its  beiu'licial  conse- 
quences to  tho  wholt!  L  iiioii  \\cM(!  soon  ft  It,  and  took  awiiy  nil 
possibility  of  holding  it  np  abthc  labannn  of  a  political  ivli^ion  of 
disnnioii.     The  piojcrtcd  si'paration  met  with  other  disastois  and 
sliioibcrcd,  till  the  atta(;k  of  the   lioopard  on  the  Chcsap'siKc, 
followed  by  the  Orders  in  Conncil  of  I  Ith  Novrmhcr,  IHi'7,  Irti 
to  tho  enibartio  of  the  12A  DetuMnber  of  lh:if  yivir.     Tlic  liisi  (if 
these  events  brought  the  nation  to  the  l>iink  of  war  uiili  (ircai 
Britain ;  and  there  is  good  reason  to  btlicvc  that  the  sci  ond  wa.) 
intended  as  a  measure  fnmilinr  to  tho  policy  of  that  govcrnmenl, 
to  sweep  our  coinniercc  from  the  ocean,  canying  into  IJrlii'h 
ports  every  vessel  of  ours  navigating  upon  the  seas,  and  holdlii'.'; 
llicm,  their  cargoes,  and  their  crows  in  sequestration,  to  aid  in 
the  negotiation  oflNlr  Rose,  and  bring  us  to  the  tern)sof  the  Dri- 
tish  cabinet.     Tiiis  was  precisely  the  period,  at  which  the  gov- 
ernor of  Nova  Scotia  was  giving  to  his  rorrespond<!nt  in  Massa- 
chusetts, the  friendly  warning  from  the  British  government  of  the 
revolutionizing  and  conquering  plan  ol  France,  which  was  com- 
municated to  me,  and  of  which  I  apprized  Mr  Jefllrson.     The 
embargo,  in  the  mean  time,  had  been  laid,  and  had  saved  most 
of  our  vessels  and  seamen  from  the  grasp  of  tho  British  criii/crs. 
It  had  rendered  impotent  the  British  Orders  in  Coinicil ;  but,  at 
the  same  time,  it  had  choaked  up  the  channels  of  our  own  con;- 
morce.     As  its  operation  bore  with  heavy  pressure  upon  the 
comi7ierce  and  navigation  of  the  North,  the  federal  leaders  soon 
began  to  clamour  against  it ;  then  to  denounce  it  as  unconst'tti- 
tional ;  and  then  to  call  upon  the  Commercial  States  to  concert 
measures  among  themselves,  to  resist  its  execution.     Tho  ques- 
tion made  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  embargo,  only  proved, 
that,  in  times  of  violent  popular  excitement,  the  clearest  delega- 
tion of  a  power  to  Congress  will  no  more  shield  the  exercise  of 
it  from  a  charge  of  usurpation,  than  that  of  a  power  tho  nittsi 
temotely  implied  or  constructive.     '^I'he  question  of  the  cf)nsti- 
tutionality  ol  the  embargo  was  solemnly  argued  before  tho  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  United  States  at  Salem ;  and  although  the 
decision  of  the  judge  was  in  its  favor,  it  continued  to  be  argiied 
to  the  juries;  and  even  when  silenced  before  thorn,  was  In  the 
distemper  of  the  times  so  ijilectious,  that  the  juries  themselves 


24 


\f\ 


1? 


habitually  acquitted  those  charged  with  the  violation  of  that  law. 
T.'iore  was  little  doubt,  that  if  the  question  of  constitutionality  hnd 
bfo;i  brought  before  the  State  judiciary  of  Massachusetts,  the 
tiecision  of  tho  court  would  have  been  against  the  law.  The 
first  postulate  lor  (be  projectors  of  disunion,  was  thus  secured. 
The  second  still  lingered ;  for  the  people,  notwithstanding  their 
excitement,  still  clung  to  the  Union,  and  the  federal  majority  in  the 
legislature  wns  very  small.  Then  was  brought  forward  the  first 
project  for  a  Convention  of  Delegates  from  the  New  England 
Slates  to  meet  in  Connecticut,  and  then  was  the  time,  at  which  I 
uraied  witb  so  much  earnestness,  by  letters  to  my  friends  at 
Washington,  the  substitution  of  the  non-intercourse  for  the  ern- 

bcHl'^iO. 

The  non-intercourse  was  substituted.  The  arrangement  with 
Mr  Er^^kine  soon  afterwards  ensued;  and  in  August,  1809,  I 
embarked  upon  a  pulilic  mission  to  Russia.  My  absence  from  the 
United  States  was  of  eight  years'  duration,  and  1  returned  to  take 
charge  of  the  department  of  State  in  1817. 

The  ruptere  of  Mr  Erskine's  arrangement,  the  abortive  mis- 
sion of  Mr  .Jackson,  the  disclosures  of  Mr  John  Henry,  the  war 
with  Great  Britain,  the  opinion  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Massachusetts,  that  by  die  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  no  power  was  given  either  to  the  president  or  to  Con- 
gress, to  determine  die  actual  existence  of  the  exigencies,  upon 
which  the  militia  of  die  several  States  may  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States,  and  the  Hartford  Convention,  all 
happened  during  iny  absence  from  this  country.  I  forbear  to 
pursue  the  narrative.  The  two  postulates  for  disunion  were 
nearly  consummated.  The  interposition  of  a  kind  Providence, 
restoring  peace  to  our  country  and  to  the  world,  aviTted  the  most 
deplorable  of  catastrophes,  and  turning  over  to  the  rereptiicle  of 
things  lost  iipo;i  earth,  the  adjourned  Convention  from  Hartford 
to  liiston,  extinguished  (by  the  mercy  of  Heaven,  may  it  be 
forever  !)  Uie  projected  New  England  Confederacy. 

GenUemen,  I  have  waved  every  scrui)le,  perhaps  even  die 
proprieties  of  my  situation,  to  give  you  this  answer,  in  considera- 
tion of  that  long  and  sincere  iVicndship  for  some  of  you,  which 
can  cease  to  beat  oidy  with  the  last  pulsation  of  my  heart.  Rut 
I  cannot  consent  to  a  controversy  with  you.  Here,  if  yon  please, 
let  our  joint  correspondence  rest.  I  will  answer  for  the 
public  eye,  or  for  the  private  ear,  at  his  option,  either  of  you, 
S|)eaking  for  himself  upon  any  question  wliicli  he  may  justly 
deem  necessary,  for  die  vimlicatinn  of  his  own  re|)utallon. 
But  I   can    recognise    among  you  no  representadve   charac- 


i 


26 

ters.  Justly  appreciating  the  filial  piety  of  those,  who  have 
signed  your  letter  in  behalf  of  their  deceased  sires,  1  have  no 
reason  to  believe  that  either  of  those  parents  would  have  au- 
thorized the  demand  of  names,  or  the  call  for  evidence  which 
you  have  made.  With  the  father  of  your  last  signer,  I  had,  in 
the  year  1809,  one  oi  more  intimately  confidential  conversations 
on  this  very  subject,  which  I  have  flattered  myself,  and  still  be- 
lieve, were  not  without  their  influence  upon  the  conduct  of  his 
last  and  best  days.  His  son  may  have  found  no  traces  of  this 
among  his  father's  papers.  He  may  believe  me  that  it  is  never- 
theless true. 

It  is  not  improbable  that  at  some  fiiture  day,  a  sense  of  solemn 
duty  to  my  country,  may  require  of  me  to  disclose  the  evidence 
which  I  do  possess,  and  for  which  you  call.  But  of  that  day  the 
selection  must  be  at  my  own  judgment,  and  it  may  be  delayed 
till  1  myself  shall  have  gone  to  answer  for  the  testimony  I  may 
bear,  before  the  tribunal  of  your  God  and  mine.  Should  a  dis- 
closure of  names  even  then  be  made  by  me,  it  will,  if  possible, 
be  made  with  such  reserve,  as  tenderness  to  the  feelings  of  tlio 
living,  and  to  the  families  and  friends  of  the  dead  may  admonish. 

But  no  array  of  numbers  or  of  power  shall  draw  me  to  a  dis- 
closure, which  I  deem  premature,  or  deter  me  from  making  it, 
when  my  sense  of  duty  shall  sound  the  call. 

In  the  mean  time,  with  a  sentiment  of  affectionate  and  una- 
bated regard  for  some,  and  of  respect  for  all  of  you,  permit  me 
to  subscribe  myself. 

Your  friend  and  fellow  citizen, 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 


I 


APPEAL 


TO   THE   CITIZENS    OF    THE   UNITED   STATES. 


v.  \ 


n 


The  following  appeal  is  made  to  you,  because  the  charges 
which  have  leiulered  it  necessary  were  exhibited  by  your  high- 
est public  functionary,  in  a  communication  designed  for  the  eyes 
of  all ;  and  because  the  citizens  of  every  State  in  the  union  have 
a  deep  interest  in  the  reputation  of  every  other  State. 

It  is  well  known,  that,  during  the  embargo,  and  the  succeeding 
restrictions  on  our  commerce,  and  also  during  the  late  war  with 
Great  Britain,  the  State  of  Massachusetts  was  sometimes  charg- 
ed with  entertaining  designs,  dangerous,  if  not  hostile,  to  the 
Union  of  the  States.  This  calumny,  having  been  engendered 
at  ?.  period  of  extreme  political  excitement,  and  being  considered 
like  the  thousand  others  which  at  such  tir.ics  are  fabricated  by 
parly  animosity,  and  which  live  out  their  day  and  expire,  has 
hidierto  attracted  very  little  attention  in  this  State.  It  stood  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  charge  against  Hamilton,  for  pecula- 
tion ;  against  the  late  President  Adams,  as  being  in  favor  of  a 
monarchy  and  nobility,  and  against  Washington  himself,  as  hos- 
tile to  France,  and  devoted  to  British  interests.  Calumnies  which 
were  seldom  believed  by  any  respectable  members  of  the  party 
which  circulated  them. 

Tlie  publication  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  the 
National  Intelligencer  of  October  last,  has  given  an  entirely  new 
character  to  these  charges  against  the  citizens  of  Massachusetts. 
They  can  no  longer  be  considered  as  the  anonymous  slanders 
of  political  partisans  ;  but  as  a  solemn  and  deliberate  impeach- 
ment by  the  first  magistrate  of  the  United  States,  and  under  the 
responsibility  of  his  name.  It  appears  also  that  this  denunciation, 
though  now  for  the  first  time  made  known  to  the  public,  and  to  the 
parties  implicated,  (whoever  they  may  be,)  was  contained  in 
private  letters  of  Mr  Adams,  written  twenty  years  ago,  to  mem- 
bers of  the  general  government ;  and  that  he  ventures  to  state  it 
as  founded  on  unequivocal  evidence  within  his  own  knowledge. 

It  was  impossible  for  those  who  had  any  part  in  the  affairs  of 
]\In?sac-lnisetts  during  the  period  in  question,  to  suffer  such  a 
charge  to  go  forth  to  the  world,  and  descend  to  posterity,  with- 
out notice.  The  high  official  rank  of  die  accuser,  the  silent,  but 
baneful  influence  of  the  original  secret  denunciation,  and  the  de- 


I 


''I 


27 


i 


1 


liberate  and  unprovoked  repetition  of  it  in  a  public  journal,  au- 
thorized an  appeal  to  Mr  Adams,  for  a  specification  oj  the  par- 
ties, and  of  the  evidence,  and  rendered  such  an  appeal  al>solutely 
imperative.  No  high-minded  honorable  man,  of  any  party,  or  of 
any  State  in  our  confederacy,  could  expect  that  the  memory  of 
illustrious  friends  deceased,  or  the  characters  of  the  living,  should 
be  left  undefended,  through  the  fear  of  awakening  long  extin- 
guished controversies,  or  of  disturbing  Mr  Adams'  retirement. 
Men  who  feel  a  just  respect  for  their  own  characters,  and  for 
public  esteem,  and  who  have  a  corresponding  sense  i/f  what 
IS  due  to  the  reputation  of  others,  will  admit  the  right  of  all  who 
might  be  supposed  by  the  public  to  be  included  in  Mr  Adams' 
denunciation,  to  call  upon  him  to  disperse  the  cloud  with  wliidi 
he  had  enveloped  their  characters.  Such  persons  had  a  right  to 
require  that  the  innocent  should  not  suffer  with  the  guilty,  if  any 
such  there  were  ;  and  that  the  parties  against  whom  the  charge 
was  levelled,  should  have  an  opportunity  to  repel  and  disprove  it. 
Mr  Adams  had  indeed  admitted  that  his  allegations  could  not  be 
proved  in  a  court  of  law,  and  thereby  prudently  declined  a  legal 
investigation  ;  but  the  persons  implicated  had  still  a  right  to  know 
what  the  evidence  was,  which  he  professed  to  consi«ler  as  'une- 
quivocal,' in  order  to  exhibit  it  to  the  tribunal  of  the  public, 
before  which  he  had  arraigned  tliem.  He  had  spoken  of  that 
evidence  as  entirely  satisfactory  to  him.  They  had  a  right  to 
ascertain  whether  it  would  be  aUke  satisfactory  to  impartial,  up- 
right, and  honorable  men. 

It  being  determined  tliat  this  denunciation  could  not  be  suffer- 
ed to  pass  unanswered,  some  question  arose  as  to  tlie  mode  in 
which  it  should  be  noticed.  Should  it  be  by  a  solemn  public 
denial,  in  the  names  of  all  those  who  came  within  the  scupe  of 
Mr  Adams'  accusation,  including,  as  it  docs,  all  the  leaders  of 
the  federal  party  from  the  year  180.3  to  1S14?  Such  a  course 
indeed  would  serve  in  Massachusetts,  where  the  characters  of 
the  parties  are  known,  most  fully  to  countervail  the  charges  of 
Mr  Adams ;  but  this  impeachment  of  their  character,  may  be 
heaiJ  in  distant  States,  and  in  future  times.  A  convention 
might  have  been  called  of  all  who  had  been  members  of  the 
federal  party  in  the  legislature  during  those  eleven  years  ;  and  a 
respectable  host  tiiey  would  be,  in  numbers,  intelligence,  educa- 
tion, talents,  and  patriotism ;  yet  it  might  then  have  been  said — 
'  You  mean  to  overpower  your  accuser  by  numbers  ;  you  intend 
to  seize  this  occasion  to  revive  the  old  and  long  extinct  federal 
party  ;  your  purpose  is  to  oppress  by  popular  clamour  a  falling 
chief;  yon  are  avenging  yourselves  for  his  ancient  deiectiou 


i'i 


■A 

^  '1 


28 


from  your  party ;  you  are  conscious  of  guilt,  but  you  endeavor 
to  diminish  the  odium  of  it  by  increasing  the  number  of  your 
accomplices.'  These  reasons  had  great  weight ;  and  the  course 
adopted  after  deliberation  appeared  to  be  free  from  all  objection. 

The  undersigned,  comprising  so  many  of  the  federal  party, 
that  Mr  Adams  should  not  be  at  liberty  to  treat  them  as  unwor- 
thy of  attention,  and  yet  so  few  that  he  could  not  charge  tliem 
with  arraying  a  host  against  him,  addressed  to  him  the  above  let- 
ter of  November  26th.  They  feel  no  fear  that  the  public  will 
accuse  them  of  presumption  in  taking  upon  themselves  the  task 
of  vindicating  the  reputation  of  the  federal  party.  The  share 
which  some  of  tliem  had  in  public  affairs  during  the  period  over 
which  Mr  Adams  has  extended  his  charges  and  insinuations,  and 
the  decided,  powerful,  and  well  merited  influence  enjoyed  by 
their  illustrious  friends,  now  deceased,  most  assuredly  gave  to 
tlie  undersigned  a  right  to  demand  the  grounds  of  the  accusa- 
tion ;  a  right  which  Mr  Adams  himself  repeatedly  admits  might 
have  been  justly  and  properly  exercised  by  each  of  them  seve- 
rally. Their  demand  was  founded  on  the  common  principle, 
recognized  alike  in  the  code  of  honor  and  of  civil  jurisprudence, 
that  no  man  should  make  a  charge  affecting  the  rights  or  charac- 
ter of  others,  without  giving  them  an  opportunity  of  knowing  the 
grounds  on  which  it  was  made,  and  of  disproving  it,  if  untrue. 
To  this  plain  and  simple  demand  the  undersigned  received  the 
answer  contained  in  the  above  letter  of  Mr  Adams,  dated  on  the 
30th  of  December. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Mr  Adams  altogether  refuses  to  produce  any 
evidence  in  support  of  his  allegations.  The  former  part  of  his 
letter  contains  his  reasons  for  that  refusal ;  and  in  the  other  part 
he  repeats  the  original  charges  in  terms  even  more  offensive  than 
before.  When  addressing  to  him  our  letter,  we  thought  we  might 
reasonably  expect  from  his  sense  of  what  was  due  to  himself,  as 
well  as  to  us,  that  he  would  fully  disclose  all  the  evidence  which  he 
professed  to  consider  so  satisfactory ;  and  we  felt  assured,  that 
in  that  event  we  should  be  able  fully  to  explain  or  refute  it,  or  to 
show  that  it  did  not  affect  any  distinguished  members  of  the  fed- 
eral party.  And  if,  on  the  other  hand,  he  should  refuse  to  dis- 
close diat  evidence,  we  trusted  that  the  public  would  presume, 
what  we  unhesitatingly  believe,  that  it  was  because  he  had  no 
evidence  that  would  bear  to  be  submitted  to  an  impartial  and  in- 
telligent community.  Mr  Adams  has  adopted  the  latter  course ; 
and  if  the  reasons  that  he  has  assigned  for  it  should  appear  to 
be  unsatisfactory,  our  fellow-citizens,  we  doubt  not,  will  Join  us 
in  drawing  the  above  inference.  We  therefore  proceed  to  an 
examination  of  those  reasons. 


!W 


fee; 
to 
us 
an 


Mr  Adams  first  objects  to  our  making  a  joint  application  to 
him;  acknowledging  the  right  of  each  one  alone  to  inquire 
whether  he  was  included  in  this  vague  and  sweeping  denuncia- 
tion. It  is  not  easy  to  si;e  wiiy  anyone  should  lose  this  ac- 
knowledged right,  by  uniting  with  others  in  the  exercise  of  it ; 
nor  why  this  mere  change  of  form  siiould  authorize  Mr  Adams 
to  disregard  our  claim.  But  there  are  two  objections  to  the 
course  which  he  has  condescended  to  point  out,  as  the  only  one 
in  which  he  could  be  approached  on  this  occasion.  Any  indi- 
vidual who  should  have  applied  to  him  in  that  mode  might  have 
been  charged  with  arrogance  ;  and  to  each  of  them  in  turn  he 
might  have  tauntingly  replied,  '  that  the  applicant  was  in  no  dan- 
ger of  suffering  as  one  of  the  '  leaders '  in  Massachusetts,  and 
had  no  occasion  to  exculpate  himself  from  a  charge  conveved  in 
the  terms  used  by  Mr  Adams.'  The  other  objection  is  still  more 
decisive.  After  allowing  to  this  denunciation  all  the  weight  that 
it  can  be  supposed  to  derive  from  the  personal  or  official  charac- 
ter of  the  accuser,  we  trust  there  are  few  citizens  of  Massachu- 
setts who  would  be  content  to  owe  their  political  reputation  to  his 
estimation  of  it,  and  condescend  to  solicit  his  certificate  to  acquit 
them  of  the  suspicion  of  treasonable  practices. 

Mr  Adams  next  objects,  that  we  make  our  application  as  the 
represt;.'  tivesof  a  great  and  powerful  party,  which,  at  the  time 
referred  to,  commanded,  as  he  says,  a  devoted  majority  in  the 
legislature  of  the  Commonwealth ;  and  he  denies  our  right  to 
represent  that  party.  We  have  already  stated  the  objections  to 
a  joint  application  by  all,  who  might  be  included  in  this  denun- 
ciation, and  to  a  separate  ipijuiry  by  each  individual ;  and  some 
of  the  reasons  which  we  thought,  justified  the  course  which  we 
have  pursued.  We  certainly  did  not  arrogate  to  ourselves  the 
title  of  '  leaders ;'  and  Mr  Adams  may  enjoy,  undisturbed,  all 
the  advantage  which  that  circumstance  can  give  him  in  this  con- 
troversy. But  we  freely  avowed  such  a  close  political  connex- 
ion with  all  who  could  probably  have  been  included  under  that 
appellation,  as  to  render  us  responsible  for  all  their  political 
measures  that  were  known  to  us  ;  and  we,  Uierefore,  must  have 
been  either  their  dupes,  or  the  associates  in  their  guilt.  In  either 
case,  we  were  interested,  and,  as  we  apprehend,  entitled,  to 
make  this  demand  of  Mr.  Adams. 

As  to  the  suggestion,  that  he  spoke  only  of  *  certain  leaders' 
of  the  federal  party,  and  not  of  the  party  itself ;  we  certainly  in- 
tended to  deny  our  knowledp;o  and  belief  that  any  such  plot  had 
been  contrived  by  any  party  whatever  in  this  State ;  and  it  is 
explicitly  so  stated  in  oyr  letter.     This  language  would  include 


30 


Ih 


"■^ 


any  niunber,  whether  large  or  small,  who  might  be  supposed  lo 
iiave  leagued  together,  for  the  purpose  suggested  by  Mr  Adams. 
There  seems,  therefore,  to  be  but  little  ground  for  this  technical 
objection,  that  we  do  not  take  the  issue  tendered  by  his  charge. 

But  we  wish  to  examine  a  little  furtlier  this  distinction  which 
Mr  Adams  relies  upon,  between  a  political  party  and  its  leaders. 
From  the  nature  of  representative  government,  it  results,  that, 
in  conducting  the  business  of  their  legislative  and  popular  assem- 
blies, some  individuals  will  be  found  to  take  a  more  active  and 
conspicuous  part  than  the  rest,  and  will  be  regarded  as  essen- 
tially influencing  public  opinion,  whilst  they  are  generally  them- 
selves merely  impelled  by  its  force.  But  this  influence,  in 
whatever  degree  it  may  exist,  is  temporary,  and  is  possessed  by 
a  constant  succession  of  difl^erent  persons.  Those  who  possess 
it  for  the  time  being,  are  called  leaders,  and,  in  the  course  of  ten 
years,  they  must  amount  to  a  very  numerous  class.  Their 
measures  and  political  objects  must  necessarily  be  identified  with 
those  of  their  whole  party.  To  deny  this  is  to  pronounce  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  upon  popular  government.  For,  admit- 
ting it  to  be  true,  that  the  people  may  be  occasionally  surprised 
and  misled  by  those  who  abuse  their  confidence  into  measures 
repugnant  to  their  interests  and  duty,  still,  if  the  majority  of 
them  can,  for  ten  years  together,  be  duped,  and  led  hoodwinked 
to  the  very  precipice  of  treason,  by  their  perfidious  guides, 
*  without  participating  in  their  secret  designs,  or  being  privy  to 
their  existence,'  they  show  themselves  unfit  for  self-government. 
It  is  not  conceivable,  that  the  federal  party,  which,  at  that  time, 
constituted  the  great  majority  of  Massachusetts,  will  feel  them- 
selves indebted  to  the  president  of  the  United  States,  for  a 
compliment  paid  to  their  loyalty,  at  the  expense  of  their  charac- 
ter for  intelligence  and  independence. 

It  is  in  the  above  sense  only,  that  a  free  people  can  recognize 
any  individuals  as  leaders ;  and  in  this  sense,  every  m:m,  who  is 
conscious  of  having  enjoyed  influence  and  consideration  with  his 
party,  may  well  deem  himself  included  in  every  opprobrious  and 
indiscriminate  impeachment  of  the  motives  of  the  leaders  of  that 
party.  But  it  would  be  arrogance  to  suppose  himself  alone  in- 
tended, when  the  terms  of  the  accusation  imply  a  confederacy 
of  many.  And  while,  on  the  one  hand,  it  would  betray  both 
selfishness  and  egotism  to  confine  his  demand  of  exculpation  to 
himself;  so,  on  the  other,  it  is  impossible  to  unite  in  one  appli- 
cation all  who  might  justly  be  considered  as  his  associates.  It 
follows  then  that  any  persons,  who,  from  the  relations  they  sus- 
tained lo  their  party,   may  apprehend  that  the  public  will  apply 


J 


11--! 


in 


' 


31 


to  them  charges  of  this  vague  description,  may  join  in  such  num- 
bers as  they  siiall  think  fit,  to  demand  an  explanation  of  charges, 
wiiich  will  probahly  aiiect  some  of  them,  and  may  affect  them 
all.  The  right,  upon  the  immutable  principles  of  justice,  is 
commensurate  with  the  injury,  and  should  be  adapted  to  its 
character. 

Again,  who  can  doubt  that  the  public  reputation  of  high  mind- 
ed men  who  have  embarked  in  the  same  cause  and  maintained 
a  communion  of  principles,  is  a  common  property,  which  all 
who  are  interested  are  bound  to  vindicate  as  occasion  may  re- 
quire— the  present  for  the  absent — the  living  for  the  dead — the 
son  for  the  father. 

If  any  responsible  individual  at  Washington  should  declare 
himself  to  be  in  possession  of  unequivocal  evidence,  that  the 
leaders  of  certain  States  in  bur  confederacy,  were  now  maturing 
a  plot  for  the  separation  of  the  States,  might  not  the  members  of 
Congress,  now  there,  from  the  States  thus  accused,  insist  upon  a 
disclosure  of  evidence  and  names  ?  Would  they  be  diverted 
from  their  purpose  by  an  evasion  of  the  question,  on  the  ground, 
that,  as  the  libeller  had  not  named  any  individuals,  so  there  was 
no  one  entitled  to  make  this  demand '/  or  would  they  be  satisfied 
with  a  misty  exculpation  of  themselves?  This  cannot  be  imag- 
ined. They  would  contend  for  the  honor  of  their  absent  friends, 
of  their  party,  and  of  their  States.  These  were  among  our  mo- 
tives for  making  this  call.  We  feel  an  interest  in  all  these  par- 
ticulars, and  especially  in  the  unsullied  good  name  of  friends  and 
associates,  who,  venerable  for  eminent  talents,  virtues  and  public 
services,  have  gone  down  to  the  grave  unconscious  of  any  impu- 
tation on  their  characters. 

Mr  Adams  admits  our  right  to  make  severally,  the  inquiries 
which  have  been  made  jointly ;  though  in  a  passage  eminent  for 
its  equivocation,  he  expresses  a  doubt  whether  we  can  come 
within  die  terms  of  his  charges.  On  this  remarkable  passage  we 
submit  one  more  observation.  As  Mr  Adams  declares  that  he 
ioell  knew  from  unequivocal  evidence  the  existence  of  such  trea- 
sonable designs,  he  must  have  known,  whether  die  parties  who 
addressed  him  were  engaged  in  those  designs.  Why  then  re- 
sort to  the  extraordinary  subterfuge,  that  if  the  signers  of  that 
letter  were  not  leaders,  then  the  charges  did  not  refer  to  them  1 

There  is  then  no  right  on  the  part  of  Mr  Adams  to  prescribe 
to  tlie  injured  parties,  (and  all  are  injured  who  may  be  compre- 
hended in  his  vague  expressions)  the  precise  form  in  which  they 
should  make  their  demand.  And  his  refusal  to  answer  that 
which  vve  have  made,  is  like  that  of  one  who  having  fired  a  ran- 


'I 


32 


i ' ' 


t 


;; 


;f! 


Uom  shot  among  a  crowd,  should  protest  against  answering  te 
tiie  complaint  of  any  whom  he  hat)  actually  wounded,  because 
they  could  not  prove  that  his  aim  was  directed  at  them. 

Anotiier  reason  assigned  by  Mr  Adams  for  his  refusal  to  name 
the  individuals  whom  he  intended  to  accuse,  is  that  it  might  ex- 
pose him  to  a  legal  prosecution.  He  certainly  had  not  much  to 
apprehend  in  this  respect  from  any  of  the  undersigned.  As  he 
had  originally  announced  diat  he  had  no  legal  evidence  to  prove 
his  charge,  and  the  undersigned  had  nevertheless  called  on  him 
to  produce  such  as  he  did  possess,  he  m'ist  have  been  sufficiently 
assured  that  their  purpose  was  not  to  resort  to  a  court  of  justice, 
but  to  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion ;  and  that  they  bad  virtually 
precluded  themselves  from  any  other  resort. 

Mr  Adams  suggests  another  objection  to  naming  the  parties 
accused,  on  account  of  the  probable  loss  of  evidence,  and  the 
forgetfulness  of  witnesses,  after  the  lapse  of  twenty  years. 

He  undoubtedly  now  possesses  all  the  evidence  that  he  had 
in  October  last,  when  he  published  his  statement.  If  he  then 
made  this  grave  charge  against  certain  of  his  fellow-citizens, 
with  the  knowledge  that  there  was  no  evidence  by  which  it  could 
be  substantiated,  where  was  his  sense  of  justice  ?  If  he  made  it 
widiout  inquiring,  and  without  regarding,  whether  he  had  any 
such  evidence  or  not,  intending  if  called  upon  to  shield  himself 
from  responsibility  by  suggesting  this  loss  of  documents  and 
proofs,  where  was  then  his  self-respect  ? 

But  did  it  never  occur  to  Mr  Adams,  that  the  parties  accused 
might  also  in  this  long  lapse  of  time  have  lost  the  proofs  of  their 
innocence  ?  He  has  known  for  twenty  years  past  that  he  had 
made  this  secret  denvnciation  of  his  ancient  political  friends; 
and  he  must  have  anticipated  the  possibility  that  it  might  at  some 
time  be  made  public,  if  he  had  not  even  determined  in  his  own 
mind  to  publish  it  himself.  He  has  Uierefore  had  ample  oppor- 
tunity, and  the  most  powerful  motives,  to  preserve  all  the  evi- 
dence that  might  serve  to  justify  his  conduct  on  that  occasion. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  parties  accused,  and  especially  those 
venerable  patriots  who  during  this  long  interval  have  descended 
to  the  grave,  unconscious  of  guilt,  and  ignorant  that  they  were 
even  suspected,  have  foreseen  no  necessity,  and  had  no  motive 
whatever,  to  preserve  any  memorials  of  their  innocence.  We 
venture  to  make  this  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  Mr  Adams  him- 
self. 

Mr.  Adams  in  one  passage  appeals  to  the  feelings  of  the  un- 
dersigned, and  intimates  his  surprise  that  they  should  have  se- 
lected the  present  moment  for  making  their  demand.    He  did 


I 


i;  i 


S8 


them  but  justice  in  supposing  that  this  consideration  had  its  influ- 
ence on  their  minds.  Their  only  fear  was  that  their  appeal  mig;ht 
be  considerud  as  an  attack  on  an  emino  n  man,  wiiom  tiie  public 
favor  seemed  to  liavc  deserted.  Bi  'ic  undersigned  luul  no 
choice.  Tlieir  accuser  liad  selected  Ins  own  time  for  bringing 
this  subject  before  the  world  ;  and  they  were  compelled  to  follow 
him  with  their  defence,  or  consent  that  the  seal  should  be  set  on 
their  own  reputations,  and  on  those  of  their  deceased  friends  for- 
ever. We  said  with  truth,  that  it  was  not  otir  design  nor  wish  to 
l)roduce  an  effect  on  any  political  party  or  question.  We  were 
not  miawaro  that  our  ap|)eal  might  lead  to  such  measures  as 
would  seriously  affect  eidier  Mr.  Adams  or  ourselves  in  the  pub- 
lic opinion.  But  whilst  we  did  not  wish  for  any  such  result,  so 
neither  were  we  disposed  to  shrink  from  it. 

The  necessity  of  correcting  some  mistakes  in  a  letter  of  jMr 
Jefferson,  which  had  been  lately  published,  is  assigned  by  ]Mr 
Adams  as  the  reason  for  his  publication.  If  that  circumstance 
has  brought  him  before  the  public  at  a  time,  or  in  a  manner,  in- 
jurious to  his  feelings,  or  unpropitious  to  his  political  views  and 
expectations,  we  are  not  responsible  for  the  consequences.  We 
would  observe,  however,  that  it  would  have  been  apparently  a 
very  easy  task  to  correct  those  mistakes,  without  adding  this 
unprovoked  denunciation  against  his  native  State. 

Finally,  Mr.  Adams  declines  all  further  correspondence  with 
us  on  this  subject;  and  even  intimates  an  apprehension  that  he 
may  have  already  condescended  too  far,  and  waved  '  even  the 
proprieties  of  his  situation,'  in  giving  us  such  an  answer  as  he  has 
given. 

He  very  much  misapprehends  the  character  of  our  institutions, 
and  the  princi|)les  and  spirit  of  his  countrymen,  if  he  imagines 
that  any  official  rank,  however  elevated,  will  authorise  a  man  to 
publish  injurious  charges  against  others,  and  then  to  refuse  all  re- 
paration and  even  explanation,  lest  it  would  tend  to  impair  his 
dignity.  If  he  is  in  any  danger  of  such  a  result  in  the  present  in- 
stance, he  should  have  foreseen  it  when  about  to  publish  his 
charges,  in  October  last.  If  'the  proprieties  of  his  situation' 
have  been  violated,  it  was  by  diat  original  publication,  and  not  by 
too  great  condescension  in  answer  to  our  call  upon  him,  for  an 
act  of  simple  justice  towards  those  who  felt  themselves  ag- 
grieved. 

We  have  thus  examined  all  the  reasons  by  which  Mr.  Adams 
attempts  to  justify  liis  refusal  to  produce  the  evidence  in  support 
of  his  allegations ;  and  we  again  appeal  with  couGdence  to  our 


.ii 


« 


h\ 


id 

M. 


h) 


J 


j 
■I 


M?. 


d4 


fellow  citizens  throughout  the  United  States,  for  the  justice  of 
our  conclusion,  that  no  such  evidence  exists. 

The  preceJing  observations  suffice,  we  trust,  to  shew,  that  we 
have  been  reluctantly  forced  into  n  controversy,  which  could  not 
be  shunned,  without  the  luost  abject  degradation  ;  that  it  was 
competent  to  us  to  interrogate  IMr  Adams,  in  the  mode  adopted, 
and  that  he  declines  a  direct  answer  for  reasons  insufficient,  and 
unsatisfactory ;  thus  placing  himself  in  the  predicament  of  an  un- 
just  accuser. 

Here,  perhaps,  we  might  safely  rest  our  appeal,  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  impossible  strictly  to  prove  a  negative.  But  though  we 
are  in  the  dark  ourselves,  with  respect  to  the  evidence  on  which 
he  relies,  to  justify  his  allegation  of  a  *  project,'  at  any  time,  to 
dissolve  the  Uiiion,  and  establish  a  northern  confederacy,  (which 
is  the  only  point  to  which  our  inquiries  were  directed,)  it  will  be 
easy  by  a  comparison  of  dates,  and  circumstances,  fo  nidedon  his 
own  admissions,  to  demonstrate  (what  we  know  iiuist  be  true) 
that  no  such  evidence  applies,  to  any  man  who  acted,  or  to  the 
measures  adopted  in  INIassachusetf-)  at,  and  posterior  to  the  time 
of  the  embargo.  The  project  ilspJIi  so  far  as  it  applies  to  those 
men  and  measures,  and  probably  altogether,  existed  only  in  the 
distempered  fancy  of  Mr.  Adams. 

'  This  design'  (he  says)  '  had  been  formed  in  (he  xcintcr  of 
'1803 — 4,  mme(/irt?e/y  fmer,  and  as  a  consequence  of,  the  ac- 
'quisiiion  of  Louisiana.     Its  justifying  causes,  to  those  who  en- 

*  tertained  it  were,  that  the  annexation  of  Louisiana  to  the  Union 

*  transcended  the  constitutional  powers  of  the  government  of  the 

*  United  States,  'i'bat  it  formed,  in  fact,  a  new  confederacy  to 
'which  the  states,  united  by  the  former  compact,  were  not  bound 
'  to  adhere.  That  it  was  oppressive  to  the  interests,  and  destruc- 
'  tive  to  the  influence,  of  the  northern  section  of  the  confederacy, 
'  whose  right  and  duty  it  therefore  was,  to  secede  from  the  new 
'body  politic,  and  to  constitute  one  of  their  own.     This  plan  was 

*  so  far  matured,  that  a  proposal  had  been  made  to  an  individual, 
'  to  permit  himself,  at  the  proper  time,  to  be  placed  at  the  head  of 

*  the  military  movements,  which,  it  was  foreseen,  would  be  ncccs- 
'sary  for  carrying  it  into  execution.'  The  interview  with  Mr 
Jefferson  was  in  March  1808.  In  INfay  ]\Ir  Adams  ceased  to  be 
a  senator.  In  the  winter  of  1808 — 9  he  made  his  communica- 
tions to  Mr.  Giles.  In  August  1809  be  embarked  for  Europe, 
three  years  before  the  war  ;  and  did  not  ret(U"n  until  three  years 
after  the  peace  ; — and  he  admits  the  impossibility  of  his  having 
given  to  Mr.  Jefferson  information  of  negotiations  between  our 
citizens,  and  the  British,  during  the  war,  or  having  relation  to  the 


1 


H' 


war— condescending  to  declare,  thu.  be  had  r    knowlei!  ^^ 
sticli  negotiations. 

The  other  measures,  to  which  Mr  Adams  nlliules,  wen  ih« 
most  piihlic  charncter ;  nnd  the  most  iinportniU  of  them  'Iter 
known,  in  tlieir  day,  to  others,  than  they  could  he  to  him  .  Glid- 
ing in  a  foreign  coinitry ;  and  if  the  chain  hy  wliich  these  mea- 
sures are  connected  with  the  supposed  plot  shall  appear  to  be 
wholly  imaginary,  these  measures  will  remain  to  be  supported,  as 
they  ought  to  be,  on  their  own  merits.  The  letter  from  the  Go- 
vernor of  Nova  Scotia,  as  will  presently  be  seen,  is  of  no  possible 
significance  in  any  view,  hut  that  of  having  constituted  the  only 
information  (as  ho  says)  which  Mr  Adams  communicated  to 
Mr  Jefterson  at  the  time  of  his  first,  and  only  confidential  inter- 
view, ll  was  written  in  the  summer  of  1807,  this  country  being 
then  in  a  state  of  peace.  The  Governor's  correspondent  is  to 
this  hour  unknown  to  us.  He  was  not,  says  Air  Adams,  a 
•  lead(^r'  of  the  Federal  parly.  The  contents  of  the  letter  were 
altogether  idle,  but  the  effect  supposed  by  INIr  Adams  to  be 
contemplated  by  the  writer,  could  be  produced  only  by  giving 
them  publicity.  It  was  commiuiicatcd  to  Mr  Adams  without 
any  injunction  of  secrecy.  He  has  no  doubt  it  was  shewn  to 
others.  Its  object  was,  he  supposes,  to  accredit  a  calumny,  that 
Mr  Jefferson,  and  his  measures,  were  subservient  to  France. 
That  the  British  government  were  informed  of  a  plan,  determin- 
ed upon  by  France,  to  effect  a  conquest  of  the  British  Provinces 
on  this  continent,  and  a  revolution  in  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  as  means  to  which,  they  were  first  to  produce  a 
war  between  the  United  States  and  England.  A  letter  of  this 
tenor  was  no  doubt  shewn  to  Mr  Adams,  as  we  must  believe  up- 
on his  word.  The  discovery  would  not  be  surprising,  that  British, 
as  well  as  French  officers,  and  citizens,  in  a  time  of  peace  with 
this  country,  availed  themselves  of  many  channels  for  conveying 
their  speculations  and  stratagems,  to  other  innocent  ears  as  well 
as  to  those  of  Mr  Adams,  with  a  view  to  influence  public  opin- 
ion. But  the  subject  matter  of  the  letter  was  an  absin'diiy. — 
Who  did  not  know"  that  in  1807,  after  the  battle  of  Trafalgar,  the 
crippled  navy  of  France  could  not  undertake  to  transport  even  a 
single  regiment  across  the  British  Channel  ?  And  if  the  object 
was  the  conquest  of  the  British  Provinces  by  the  United  States 
alone,  how  could  a  revolution,  in  their  government,  which  must 
divide,  and  weaken  it,  promote  that  end  9 

The  folly  of  a  British  Governor  in  attempting  to  give  currency 
to  a  story  which  savours  so  strongly  of  the  burlesque,  can  be 
equalled  only  by  the  credulity  of  Mr  Adams,  in  believing  it  cal> 


36 


I 


J' 


f   !t, 


culntcd  to  produce  efiect ;  ond  if  h«  did  so  believe,  it  furnishes 
a  criterion  by  wliich  to  estimate  the  correctness  an<l  impartiality 
of  his  jiulgriient  concerning  tiic  weij^ht  and  tlio  application  of 
the  oihrr  evidence  uhicii  lie  still  withhold?,  and  from  which  he 
has  uiuiertaken  with  cqnnl  confidence  to  '  draw  his  inferences.' 
Afior  the  adjustment  of  the  diplomatic  preliminaries  with  Mr 
Giles  and  others,  IMr  Adams  communicated  nothing  to  Mr 
Jcflt'rson,  but  the  substance  of  the  Nova  Scotia  letter.  If  Mr 
Adams  had  then  known  and  believed  in  the  '  project,'  (iho 
'  key'  to  all  the  future  proceedings)  it  is  incredible  that  it  should 
not  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  disclosure — at  that  time,  and 
071  that  occasion. 

In  this  connexion  we  advert  for  a  moment  to  the  temper  of 
mind,  and  the  state  of  feelings,  which  probably  gave  rise  to,  and 
accompanied,  this  communication  of  Mr  Adams.  Circumstances 
hail  occurred  tending  to  embitter  liis  feelings,  and  to  warp  his 
judgment. 

Air  Adams,  just  before  die  time  of  his  interview  with  Mr 
Jefferson,  had  voted  for  the  en)bargo.    He  had  been  reproached 
for  having  done  this  on  the  avowed  principle,  of  voting,  and  not 
deliberating,  upon  the  Executive  recommendation.       Ho  had 
been  engaged  with  his  colleague  in  a  controversy  on  diis  subject. 
His  conduct,  as  he  affirms,  and  as  was  Uie  fact,  bad  been  cen- 
sured, jn  terms  of  severity,  in  the  public  press.     The   Legisla- 
ture of  Massachusetts  had  elected  another  person  to  succeed  him 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  had  otherwise  expressed 
such  a  strong  and  decided  disapprobation  of  the  measures  which 
he  had  supported,  that  he  felt  compelled  to  resign  his  seat  be- 
fore die  expiral  )n  of  his  term.     These  might  be  felt  as  injuries, 
even  by  men  of  placable  temper.     It  is  probable  that  his  feel- 
ings of  irritation  may  be  traced  back  to  the  contest  between 
Jefferson  and  the  elder  Adams.     It  is  no  secret,  that  the  latter 
had  cherished  deep  and  bitter  resentment  against  Hamilton,  and 
certain   other   '  leaders'  of  the   federal   party,  supposed  to  be 
Hamilton's  friends.     It  would  not  be  unnatural   that  the  son 
should  participate  in  these  feelings  of  the  father.     When  Mr 
Adams  visited  Mr  Jefferson,  and  afterwards  made  his  disclosures 
to  INlr  Giles  and  others,  having  lost  Uie  confidence  of  his  own 
party,  he  had  decided,  '  as  subsequent  events  doubtless  confirm- 
ed,' to  throw  himself  into  the  arms  of  liis  father's  opponent 
But  there  was  a  load  of  political  guilt,  personal  and  hereditar\ 
still  resting  upon  him,  in  the  opinions  of  t!ie  adverse  party.     ]\o 
ordinary  proof  of  his  unqualified  abjuration  of  his  late  politics 
would  be  satisfactory )— some  sacrifice,  which  should  put  his  sin* 


, 
^ 


Mi 


>  ^i 


h 


ki 


' 


l'- 


37 


ii'in- 

eni 

tar\ 

No 
itics 

sin* 


ceritv  to  the  test,  and  place  an  impassablo  barrier  between  him  and 
his  lormer  party,  was  indispensable.  And  what  sacrifice  was  so 
natiirul,  wlint  pledge  so  perfect,  as  this  privntc  denunciation  I 
Nor  docs  the  effect  seem  to  liave  been  luiscnlcidated  or over- 
rated. Mr  Jefferson  declares  that  it  raised  Mr  Adams  in  his 
mind.  Its  eventual  consequences  were  hijiiily,  and  permanently 
advantageous  to  Mr  Adams.  And  though  he  assured  Mr  Giles, 
that  he  had  renoiniced  his  party,  without  personal  views ;  yet 
this  '  denial,'  considering  that  he  hud  the  good  fortune  to  receive 
within  ft  few  months,  tho  emhasry  to  Russia,  ♦  connected  with 
other  circumstances,'  which  ended  in  his  elevation  to  the  presi- 
dency, does  indeed,  according  to  his  own  principles  of  presuujp- 
tivo  evidence,  require  .n  effort  of  '  the  charity  which  believeth 
all  things,'  to  gain  it  '  credence.' 

To  iliese  public,  and  indisputable  facts,  we  should  not  now  re- 
vert, had  Mr.  Adams  given  us  the  names,  and  evidence,  as  ;•<■- 
quested  ;  and  had  he  forborne  to  reiterate  his  injurious  m     't- 
tions.     Hut  as  they  now  rest  wholly  upon  the  sanction  of 
opinion,  respecting  evidence  which  he  alone  possesses,  we  u  • 
it  but  reasonable  to  consider,  how  (ar  these  circumstance   .;,   j 
have  heated  his  imagination,  or  disturbed  his  equanimity 
given  to  the  evidence,  which  he  keeps  from  the  public  eye,  an 
unnatural,  and  false  com|)lexion. 

We  proceed  then  to  a  brief  examination  of  the  alleged  project 
of  I8()3--4 — of  the  Northern  confederacy. 

Ill  ihe  first  place,  fVe  solemnhj  disavow  all  knowledge  of  such 
a  project,  and  all  remembrance  of  the  mention  of  it,  or  of  any 
plan  analosroHs  to  it,  at  that  or  any  subsequent  period.  Second- 
ly, While  it  is  obviously  impossible  for  us  to  controvert  evidence 
of  which  we  are  ignoroiit,  we  are  well  assured  it  must  be  equally 
impossible  to  bring  any  facts  which  can  be  considered  evidence 
to  bear  upon  the  designs  or  measures  of  those,  who,  at  the  time 
of  INIr  Adams'  interview  with  Mr  Jefferson,  and  afterwards,  dur- 
ing tho  war,  took  an  active  part  in  the  public  affairs  of  Massa- 
chusetts. 

The  effort  discernible  throughout  this  letter,  to  connect  those 
later  events,  which  were  of  a  public  nature,  and  of  which  the 
natural  and  adequate  causes  were  public,  with  the  mysterious 
project,  known  only  to  himself,  of  an  earlier  origin  and  distinct 
source,  is  in  the  last  degree  violent  and  disingenuous. 

The  cession  of  Louisiana  to  the  United  States,  when  first  pro- 
mulged,  was  a  theme  of  complaint  and  dissatisfaction,  in  this  part 
of  the  country.  This  could  not  be  regarded  as  factious  or  un- 
reasonable, when  it  is  admitted  by  Mr  Adams,  that  Mr  Jefferson 


M" 


38 


and  himself  entertained  constitutional  Bcniples  and  objections  to 
the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  cession.  Nothing,  however,  like  a 
popular  excitement  grew  out  of  the  measure,  and  it  is  stated  by 
JMr  Adams  tliat  this  project  *  slumbered^  until  the  period  of  the 
embargo  in  December  1807.  Suppose  then  for  the  moment 
(what  we  have  not  a  shadow  of  reason  for  believing,  and  do  not 
believe)  that  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Louisiana  Treaty,  'certain 
leaders'  influenced  by  constitutional  objections,  (admitted  to  have 
been  common  to  Mr  .lefTerson,  Mr  Adams  and  themselves,)  had 
conceived  a  project  of  separation,  and  of  a  Northern  Confeder- 
acy, as  the  only  probable  counterpoise  to  the  manufiicture  of  new 
Slates  in  the  South,  does  it  follow  that  when  the  public  mind  be- 
came reconciled  to  the  cession,  and  the  beneficial  consequences 
of  it  were  realized,  (as  it  is  conceded  by  Mr  Adams,  was  the 
case)  tl>es'e  same  '  leaders,'  whoever  they  niight  be,  would  still 
cherish  tbe  embryo  project,  and  wait  for  other  contingencies,  to 
enable  them  to  effect  it  9  On  what  authority  can  Mr  Adams 
assume  that  the  project  merely  'slumbered'  for  years,  if  his 
private  evidence  applies  only  to  the  time  of  its  origin. 

The  opposition  to  the  measiu'es  of  government  in  1808  arose 
from  causes,  which  were. common  to  the  people,  not  only  of 
New.-England,  bilt  of  all  the  commercial  states,  as  was  manifest- 
ed in  New-York,  Philadelphia,  and  elsewhere.  By  what  pro- 
cess of  fair  reasoning  then  can  that  opposition  be  referred  to,  or 
connected  with  a  plan,  which  is  said  to  have  originated  in  1804, 
and  to  have  been  intended  to  embrace  merely  a  northern  con- 
federacy *?  The  objection  to  the  Louisiana  treaty  was  founded 
on  the  just  construction  of  the  compact  between  sovereign  states. 
It  was  believed  in  New-England,  that  new  members  could  not 
be  added  to  the  confederacy  beyond  the  territorial  limits  of  the 
contracting  parties  without  the  consent  of  those  parties.  This 
was  considered  as  a  fair  subject  of  remonstrance,  and  as  justify- 
ing proposals  for  an  amendment  of  the  constitution.  But  so  lar 
were  the  Federal  party  from  attempting  to  use  this  as  an  addi- 
tional incentive  to  the  passions  of  the  day,  that  in  a  report  made 
to  the  Legislature  of  1813  by  a  commhtee  of  which  Mr  Adams's 

*  excellent  friend  '  Josiali  Quincy  was  chairman,  (Louisiana  hav- 
ing at  this  time  been  admitted  into  the  Union)  it  is  expressly 
stated,  that  '  they  have  not  been  disposed  to  conv.ect  this  great 

*  constitutional  question  with  the  transient  calamities  of  the  day, 

*  from  which  it  is  in  their  opinion  very  apparently  distinguished 

*  both  in  its  cause  and  consequences.'  That  in  their  view  of  this 
great  constitutional  question,  they  have  confined  themselves  to 
topics  and  arguments  drawn  from  the  constitution,  'with  the  hope 


39 


^ 


•  of  limiting  the  further  progress  of  the  evil,  rather  than  with  the 
'  expectation  of  immediate  relief  during  llie  continuance  of  exist- 

*  ing  influences  in  tlie  national  administration.'  This  report  was 
accepted  ;  and  thus  the  '  project'  instead  of  being  used  as  fuel 
to  the  flame,  is  deliberately  taken  out  of  it,  and  presented  to  the 
people  by  '  the  leaders'  as  resting  on  distinct  considerations 
from  the  '  transient  calamities,'  and  for  which  present  redress 
ought  neither  to  be  sought,  or  expected. 

To  the  embargo  imposed  in  December,  1807,  nearly  all  the 
delegation  of  Massachusetts  was  opposed.  The  pretexts  for  im- 
posing it  were  deemed  by  her  citizens  a  mockery  of  her  suffer- 
ings. Owning  nearly  one  third  of  the  tonnage  in  the  United 
Slates,  she  felt  that  her  voice  ought  to  be  heard  in  what  related 
to  its  security.  Depending  principally  on  her  foreign  trade  and 
fisheries  for  support,  iier  situation  appeared  desperate-lir^cier  the 
operation  of  this  law  in  its  terms  perpetual.  It  was  a  bitter  ag- 
gravation of  her  sufferings  to  be  told,  that  its  object  was  to  pre- 
serve these  interests.  No  people,  at  peace,  in  an  equal  space  of 
time,  ever  endured  severer  privations.  She  could,  not' consider 
the  annihilation  of  her  trade  as  included  in  the  power  to  regulate 
it.  To  her  lawyers,  statesmen,  and.  citizens  in  general,  it  ap- 
peared a  direct  violation  of  the  constitution,  h  was  universally 
odious.  The  disaffoction  was  not  confined  to  the  federal  party. 
Mr  Adams,  it  is  said,  and  not  contradicted,  announced  in  iiis 
letters  to  the  members  of  Congress,  that  government  must  not 
rely  upon  its  own  friends.  The  interval  from  J  807  to  1812 
was  filled  up  by  a  series  of  restrictive  measures  which  kept  alive 
the  discontent  and  irritation  of  the  popular  mind.  Then  followed 
the  war,  under  circumstances  whicJi  aggravated  the  public  dis- 
tress. In  its  progress,  Massachuselis  was  deprived  of  garrisons 
for  her  ports — with  a  line  of  sea-coast  equal  in  extent  to  one 
third  of  that  of  all  the  other  maritime  States,  she  was  left  dining 
the  whole  war  nearly  defenceless.  Her  citizens  subjeci  to  in- 
cessant alarm  ; — a  portion  of  the  country  invaded,  and  taken 
possession  of  as  a  conquered  territory.  Her  own  militia  array- 
ed, and  encamped  at  an  enormous  expense  ;  pay  and  subsistence 
supplied  from  her  nearly  exhausted  treasury,  and  reimbursement 
rcfiised,  even  to  this  day.  Now,  what,  under  the  pressure  and 
excitement  of  these  measures,  was  the  conduct  of  the  federal 
party,  the  '  devoted  majority,'  with  the  military  force  of  the 
State  in  their  hands ; — with  the  encourngenient  to  be  derived 
from  a  conviction  that  the  Northern  Slates  were  in  sympathy 
will)  their  feelings,  and  that  government  could  not  rely  on  ils  own 
friends  ?    Did  they  resist  the  laws  ?    Not  in  a  solitary  instaace. 


40 


II'  n 


Did  they  threaten  a  separation  of  the  States  1  Did  they  array 
their  forces  with  a  show  of  such  disposition  *?  Did  the  govern- 
ment or  people  of  Massacluisetts  in  any  one  instance  swerve  from 
their  allegiance  to  tlie  Union  7  The  reverse  of  all  this  is  the 
truth.  Abandoned  by  the  national  government,  because  she 
declined,  for  reasons  which  her  highest  tribunal  adjudged  to  be 
constitutional,  to  surrender  her  militia  into  the  hands  of  a  military 
prefect,  ahhough  they  were  always  equipped,  and  ready  and 
faithful  under  their  own  officers,  she  nevertheless  clung  to  the 
Union  as  to  the  ark  of  her  safety,  she  ordered  her  well  trained 
militia  into  the  field,  stationed  them  at  the  points  of  danger,  de- 
frayed their  expenses  from  her  own  treasury,  and  garrisoned 
with  them  the  national  forts.  All  her  taxes  and  excises  were 
paid  with  punctuality  and  promptness,  an  example  by  no  means 
followed  by  some  of  the  States,  in  which  the  cry  lor  war  had 
been  loudest.  These  iacts  are  recited  for  no  other  purpose  but 
that  of  preparing  for  the  inquiry,  what  becomes  of  Mv  Adams' 
'key,'  his  'project,'  and  his  'postulates?'  The  latter  were  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  to  use  his  language,  'consummated.' 

Laws  unconstitutional  in  the  public  opinion  had  been  enacted. 
A  great  majority  of  an  exasperated  people  were  in  a  state  of  the 
highest  excitement.  The  legislature  (if  his  word  be  taken)  was 
under  '  the  management  of  the  leaders.'  The  judicial  courts 
were  on  their  side,  and  the  juries  were,  as  he  pretends,  contami- 
nated. A  golden  opportunity  had  arrived.  '  Now  was  the  win- 
ter of  their  discontent  made  glorious  summer.'  All  the  combus- 
tibles for  revolution  were  ready.  When,  behold !  instead  of  a 
dismembered  Union,  military  movements,  a  northern  confedera- 
cy, and  British  alliance,  accomplished  at  the  favorable  moment 
of  almost  total  prostration  of  the  credit  and  power  of  the  national 
rulers,  a  small  and  peaceful  deputation  of  gra\  e  citizens,  selected 
f'-om  the  ranks  of  civil  life,  and  legislative  councils,  assembled  at 
Hartford.  There,  calm  and  collected,  like  the  Pilgrims,  from 
whom  tiioy  descended,  and  not  unn)in(ll"ul  of  those  who  had 
achieved  the  independence  of  their  country,  they  deliberated  on 
the  most  effectual  means  of  preserving  for  their  fellow-citizens 
and  their  descendants  the  civil  and  political  liberty  which  had 
been  won,  and  bequeathed  to  them. 

The  character  of  this  much  injured  assembly  has  been  sub- 
jected to  heavier  imputations,  under  an  entire  deficiency  not  on- 
ly of  proof,  but  of  probability,  than  ever  befel  any  other  set  of 
men,  discharging  merely  (he  duties  of  a  committee  of  a  1  gisla- 
live  body,  and  making  a  public  report  of  their  doings  tj  their 
constituents.     These  imputations  have  never  assutned  a  prccioc 


^ 


41 


form  but  vague  opinions  have  prevailed  of  a  combination  to  sepa- 
rate the  Union.  Aa  Mr  Adams  has  condescended,  by  the  manner 
in  which  he  speaks  of  that  convention,  to  adopt  or  countenance 
those  imputations  on  its  proceedings,  we  may  be  excused  for  mak- 
ing a  few  more  remarks  on  the  subject,  although  this  is  not  a 
suitable  occasion  to  go  into  a  full  explanation  and  vindication  of 
that  measure. 

The  subject  naturally  resolves  itself  into  four  points,  or  questions : 

First,  the  constitutional  right  cf  a  State  to  appoint  delegates  to 
such  a  convention : 

Secondly,  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  exercising  that  right 
at  that  time : 

Thirdly,  the  objects  intended  to  be  attained  by  it,  and  the  pow- 
ers given  for  that  purpose  by  the  State  to  the  delegates ;  and 

Fourthly,  the  manner  in  which  the  delegates  exercised  their 
power. 

As  to  the  first  point,  it  will  not  be  doubted  that  the  people  have 
a  right  '  in  an  orderly  and  peaceable  manner  to  assemble  to  con- 
sult upon  the  common  good  ;'  and  to  request  of  their  rulers  '  by 
the  way  of  addresses,  petitions,  or  remonstrances,  redress  of  the 
wrongs  done  them,  and  of  the  grievances  they  suffer.'  This  is 
enumerated  hi'the  constitution  of  Massachusetts  among  our  natu- 
ral, essential,  and  unalienable  rights ;  and  it  is  recognized  in  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  who  then  shall  dare  to  set 
limits  to  its  exercise,  or  to  prescribe  to  us  the  manner  in  which  it 
shall  be  exerted  ?  We  have  already  spoken  of  the  state  of  public 
affairs  and  the  measures  of  the  general  government,  in  the  year 
1814,  and  of  the  degree  of  excitement,  amounting  nearly  to  des- 
peration, to  which  they  had  brought  the  minds  of  the  people  in 
this  and  the  adjoining  States.  Their  sufferings  and  apprehensions 
could  no  longer  be  silently  endured,  and  numerous  meetings  of 
the  citizens  had  been  held  on  the  occasion  in  various  parts  of  the 
country.  It  was  then  thought  that  the  measures  called  for  in 
such  an  emergency  would  be  more  prudently  and  safely  matured 
and  promoted  by  the  government  of  the  State,  than  by  unorgan- 
ized bodies  of  individuals,  strongly  excited  by  what  they  consid- 
ered to  be  the  unjust  and  oppressive  measures  of  the  general 
government.  If  all  the  citizens  had  the  right,  jointly  and  severally, 
to  consult  for  the  common  good,  and  to  seek  for  a  redress  of  their 
grievances,  no  reason  can  be  given  why  their  legislative  assembly, 
which  represents  them  all,  may  not  exercise  the  same  right  in 
their  behalf.  We  nowhere  find  any  constitutional  prohibition  or 
restraint  of  the  exercise  of  this  power  by  the  State  ;  and  if  not 
prohibited  it  is  reserved  to  the  State.  We  maintain  then  that  the 
people  had  an  unquestionable  right,  in  this  as  well  as  in  other 
modes,  to  express  their  opinions  of  the  measures  of  the  general 
government,  and  to  seek,  '  by  addresses,  petitions  or  remon- 
strances,' to  obtain  a  redress  of  their  grievances  and  relief  from 
their  sufferings. 

6 


i 


ff. 


X 


I'' 


'J 

III  '' 

i1  !■' 


r! 


i,' 


t 


i. 


1^1: 


\\\t  ' 


42 


Il'tlicru  was  no  constitutional  object ron  to  this  mode  of  I)ro^' 
ceeding,  it  will  be  readily  admitted  that  it  was  in  all  respects  the 
most  eligible.  In  the  state  of  distress  and  danger  which  then  op- 
pressed all  hearts,  it  was  to  be  apprehended,  as  before  siiggested, 
that  large  and  frequent  assemblies  of  the  people  might  lead  to 
measures  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  order  of  the  community. 
If  an  appeal  was  to  be  made  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  it  was  likely  to  be  more  effectual,  if  proceeding  from  the 
whole  State  collectively,  than  from  insulated  assemblies  of  citi- 
zens ;  and  the  application  in  that  form  would  tend  also  to  repress 
the  public  excitement,  and  prevent  any  sudden  and  unadvised 
proceedings  of  the  people,  by  holding  out  to  them  the  prospect 
of  relief  through  the  influence  of  their  State  government.  This 
latter  consideration  had  great  weight  with  the  legislature  ;  and  it 
is  believed  to  have  been  the  only  motive  that  could  have  induced 
some  of  the  delegates  to  that  convention  to  quit  the  seclusion  to 
which  they  hati  toluntarily  retired,  to  expose  themselves  anew  to 
all  the  fatigue  and  anxiety,  the  odium,  the  misrepresentations, 
calumnies,  and  unjust  reproaches,  which  so  frequently  accompany 
and  follcv  the  best  exertions  for  the  public  good. 

If  each  one  of  the  States  had  the  right  thus  to  seek  a  redress 
of  grievances,  it  is  clear  that  two  or  more  States  might  conjj'.lt 
together  for  the  same  purpose  ;  and  the  only  mode  in  which  they 
could  consult  each  other  was  by  a  mutual  appointment  of  dele- 
gates for  that  purpose. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  ground,  nor  is  it  the  strongest,  on 
which  to -rest  the  justification  of  the  proceedings  in  question.  If 
the  government  of  the  United  States  in  a  time  of  such  distress 
and  danger  should  be  unable,  or  should  neglect,  tu  afford  protec- 
tion and  relief  to  the  people,  the  legislature  of  the  State  would  not 
only  have  a  right,  but  it  would  be  their  duty,  to  consult  together, 
and,  if  practicable,  to  furnish  these  from  their  own  resources. 
This  would  be  in  aid  of  the  general  government.  How  severely 
the  people  of  Massachusetts  experienced  at  that  time  the  want  of 
this  ability  or  disposition,  in  the  general  government,  we  need  not 
repeat.  If  the  legislature  of  a  single  State  might  under  such  cir- 
cumstances endeavour  to  provide  for  its  defence,  without  infring- 
ing the  national  compact,  no  reason  is  perceived,  why  they  might 
not  appoint  a  committee  or  delegates,  to  confer  with  delegates  nf 
neighbouring  States  who  were  exposed  to  like  dangers  and  suffer- 
ings, to  devise  and  suggest  to  their  respective  legislatures  measures 
by  which  their  own  resources  might  be  employed  '  in  a  manner 
not  repugnant  to  their  obligations  as  members  of  the  Union.'  A 
part  of  New-England  had  been  invaded,  and  was  then  held  by  the 
enemy,  without  an  effort  by  the  general  government  to  regain  it ; 
and  if  another  invasion,  which  was  then  threatened  and  generally 
expected,  had  taken  place,  and  the  New-England  States  had  been 
still  deserted  by  the  government,  and  left  to  rely  on  their  own  re- 
sources, it  is  obvious  that  the  best  mode  of  providing  for  their  com- 


s 


43 


mon  defence  would  have  been  by  a  simultaneous  and  combined 
operation  of  all  their  forces.  The  States  originally  possessed  this 
right,  and  we  hold  that  it  has  never  been  surrendered,  nor  taken 
from  them  by  the  people. 

The  argument  on  this  point  might  be  easily  extended ;  but  we 
may  confidently  rely  on  the  two  grounds  above  mentioned,  to  wit, 
the  right  of  the  people,  through  their  State  legislatures  or  other- 
wise, to  petition  and  remonstrate  for  a  redress  of  their  grievan- 
ces; and  the  right  of  the  States  in  a  time  of  war  and  of  threaten- 
ed invasion  to  make  the  necessary  provisions  for  their  own  de- 
fence. To  these  objects  was  confined  the  whole  authority  con- 
ferred by  our  legislature  on  the  delegates  whom  they  appointed. 
They  were  directed  to  meet  and  confer  with  other  delegates,  and 
to  devise  and  suggest  measures  of  relief  for  the  adoption  of  the 
respective  States  ;  but  not  to  represent  or  act  for  their  constitu- 
ents by  agreeing  to,  or  adopting  any  such  measures  themselves, 
or  in  behalf  of  the  States. 

But  whilst  we  strenuously  maintain  this  right  of  the  people,  to 
complain,  to  petition,  and  to  remonstrate  in  the  strongest  terms 
against  measures  which  they  think  to  be  unconstitutional,  unjust, 
or  oppressive,  and  to  do  this  in  the  manner  which  they  shall  deem 
most  convenient  or  effectual,  provided  it  be  in  an  '  orderly  and 
peareable  manner ;'  we  readily  admit  that  a  wise  people  would 
not  hastily  resort  to  it,  especially  in  this  imposing  form,  on  every 
occasion  of  partial  and  temporary  discontent  or  suffering.  We 
therefore  proceed  to  consider, 

Secondly,  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  adopting  that  meas- 
ure in  the  autumn  of  1814.  On  this  point  it  is  enough  to  say, 
that  the  grievances  that  were  suffered  and  the  dangers  that  were 
apprehended  at  that  time,  and  the  strong  excitement  which  they 
produced  among  all  the  people,  which  is  stated  more  particularly 
elsewhere  in  this  address,  rendered  some  measures  for  their  re- 
lief indispensably  necessary.  If  the  legislature  had  not  under- 
taken their  cause,  it  appeared  to  be  certain,  as  we  have  already 
suggested,  that  the  people  would  take  it  into  their  own  hands  ; 
and  there  was  reason  to  fear  that  the  proceedings  in  that  case 
might  be  less  orderly  and  peaceful,  and  at  the  same  time,  less  ef- 
ficacious. 

Thirdly.  We  have  already  stated  the  objects  which  our  State 
government  had  in  view,  in  proposing  the  convention  at  Hartford, 
and  the  powers  conferred  on  their  delegates.  If,  instead  of  ihe«e 
avowed  objects,  there  had  been  any  secret  plot  for  a  disr.i  inber- 
ment  of  the  Union,  in  which  it  had  been  desired  to  engage  the 
neighboring  States,  the  measures  for  that  purpose  we  may  sup- 
pose would  have  been  conducted  in  the  most  private  manner  pos- 
sible. On  the  contrary,  the  resolution  of  our  legislature  for  ap- 
pointing their  delegates,  and  prescribing  their  powers  and  duties, 
was  openly  discussed  and  passed  in  the  usual  manner  ;  and  a  copy 


i 


I ,  . 


iir; 


44 


of  it  was  immediately  sent,  by  direction  of  the  legislature,  to 
the  governor  of  every  State  in  the  Union. 

Fourthly.  The  only  r?maining  question  is,  whether  the  dele- 
gates exceeded  or  abused  their  powers.  As  to  this,  we  have  only 
to  refer  to  the  report  of  their  proceedings,  and  to  their  journal, 
which  is  deposited  in  the  archives  of  this  State. 

That  report,  which  was  published  immediately  after  the  ad- 
journment of  the  convention,  and  was  soon  after  accepted  by  the 
legislature,  holds  forth  the  importance  of  the  Union  as  paramount 
to  all  uther  considerations ;  enforces  it  by  elaborate  reasoningy 
and  refers  in  express  terms  to  Vashington's  farewell  address,  as 
its  text  book.  If,  then,  no  pow  r  to  do  wrong  was  given  by  the 
legislature  to  the  convention,  aitd  if  nothing  unconstitutional,  dis- 
loyal, or  tending  to  disunion,  was  in  fact  done  (all  which  is  man- 
ifest of  record)j  there  remains  no  pretext  for  impeaching  the  mem- 
bers of  the  convention  by  imputing  to  them  covert  and  nefarious 
designs,  except  the  uncharitable  one,  that  the  characters  of  the 
men  justify  the  belief,  that  they  cherished  in  their  hearts  wishes, 
and  intentions,  to  do,  what  they  had  no  authority  to  execute,  and 
what  in  fact  they  did  not  attempt.  On  this  head,  to  the  people 
of  New  England  who  were  acquainted  with  these  characters,  no 
explanation  is  necessary.  For  the  information  of  others,  it  behoves 
those  of  us  who  were  members  to  speak  without  reference  to  our- 
seiv.38.  With  this  reserve  we  may  all  be  permitted  to  say,  with- 
out fear  of  contradiction,  that  they  fairly  represented  whatever  of 
moral,  intellectual,  or  patriotic  worth,  is  to  be  found  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  New  England  community ;  that  they  retained  all  the 
personal  consideration  and  confidence,  which  are  enjoyed  by  the 
best  citizens,  those  who  have  deceased,  to  the  hour  of  their  death, 
and  those  who  survive,  to  the  present  time.  For  the  satisfaction 
of  those  who  look  to  self-love,  and  to  private  interest,  as  springs 
of  human  action,  it  may  be  added,  that  among  the  mass  of  citi- 
zens, friends,  and  connexions,  whom  they  represented,  were 
many,  whose  fortunes  were  principally  vested  in  the  public  funds, 
to  whom  the  disunion  of  the  States  would  have  been  ruin.  That 
convention  may  be  said  to  have  originated  with  the  people.  Mea- 
sures for  relief  had  been  demanded  from  immense  numbers,  in 
counties  and  towns,  in  all  parts  of  the  State,  long  before  it  was 
organized.  Its  main  and  avowed  object  was  the  defence  of  this 
part  of  the  country  against  the  common  enemy.  The  war  then 
wore  its  most  threatening  aspect.  New  England  was  destitute  of 
national  troops  ;  her  treasuries  exhausted  ;  her  taxes  drawn  into 
the  national  coffers. 

The  proceedings,  and  report  of  the  convention,  were  in  confor- 
mity with  this  object.  The  burden  of  that  report  consisted  in  re- 
commending an  application  to  Congress  to  permit  the  States  to 
provide  for  their  own  defence,  and  to  be  indemnified  for  the  ex- 
pense, by  reimbursement,  in  some  shape,  from  the  National  Gro- 
vernment,  of,  at  least,  a  portion  of  Mcir  own  money.  This  conven- 


i 


.>  ..^ 


46 


tion  adjourned  early  in  Janiiary.  On  the  27th  of  the  same  month, 
an  act  of  Congress  was  passed,  which  gave  to  the  State  Govern- 
ments, the  very  power  which  was  sought  by  Massachusetts  -,  viz 
— that  of  '  raising,  organizing  and  officering'  state  trocps,  *  to  be 
employed  in  the  State  raising  the  same,  or  in  an  adjoining  State' 
and  providing  for  their  pay  and  subsistence.     This  we  repeat  was 
the  most  important  object  aimed  at  by  the  institution  of  the  conven- 
tion, and  by  th«  report  of  that  body.  Had  this  act  of  Congress  pass- 
ed, before  the  act  of  Massachusetts,  for  organizing  the  convention, 
that  convention  never  would  have  existed.  Had  such  an  act  been  an- 
ticipated by  the  convention,  or  passed  before  its  adjournment,  that 
assembly  would  have  considered  its  commission  as  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, superseded.     For  although  it  prepared  and  reported  sundry 
amendments  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  all  the  States,  and  might  even,  if  knowing  of  this  act  of 
Congress,  have   persisted  in  doing  the  same  thing  ;  yet,  as  this 
proposal  for  amendments  could  have  been  accomplished  in  other 
modes,  they  could  have  had  no  special  motive  for  so  doing,  but 
what  arose  from   their  being  together  ;  and  from  the  considera- 
tion which  might  be   hoped  for,  as  to  their  propositions,  from 
that  circumstance.     It  is  thus  matter  of  absolute  demonstration, 
to  all  who  do  not  usurp  the  privilege  of  the  searcher  o/'Aear/s 
that  the  design  of  the  Hartford  convention  and  its  doings  were 
not  only  constitutional  and  laudable,  but  sanctioned  by  an  act  of 
Congress,  passed  after  the  report  was  published,  not  indeed  with 
express  reference  to  it,  but  with   its  principal  features,  and  thus 
admitting  the  reasonableness  of  its  general  tenor,  and  principal 
object.     It  is  indeed  grievous  to  perceive  Mr  Adams  condescend- 
ing to  intimate  that  the  Convention  was  adjourned  to  Boston,  and 
in  a  strain  of  rhetorical  pathos  connecting  his  imaginary  plot,  then 
at  least  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  its  age,  with  the  '  catastrophe' 
which  awaited  the  ultimate  proceedings  of  the  convention.    That 
assembly  adjourned  without  day,  after  making  its  report.     It  was 
ipso  facto  dissolved,  like  other  Committees.     One  of  its  resolu- 
tions did  indeed  purport  that  '  if  the  application  of  these  States 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States,   {recommended  in  afore- 
going resolution)  should  be  unsuccessful,  and  peace  should  not  be 
concluded,  and  the  defence  of  these  States  should  be  neglected  as  it 
has  been,  since  the  commencement  of  the  war,  it  will  be,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  Convention,  expedient  for  the  Legislature  of  the 
several  States,  to  appoint  delegates  to  another  Convention  to  meet 
at  Boston  on  the  third  Tuesday  of  June  next,  with  such  powers 
and  instructions  as  the  exigency  of  a  crisis,  so  momentous  may 
require.'     On  this  it  is  to  be  observed, 

First,  That  the  Convention  contemplated  in  the  foregoing  reso- 
lution never  was  appointed,  and  never  could  have  been,  according 
to  the  terms  of  that  resolution ;  because,  as  is  shown  above,  the 
object  of  the  intended  application  to  Congress  had  been  attained. 
And,  Secondly,  if  the  contingencies  mentioned  in  that  resolution 


46 


H' 


If'    i: 


If  ■ 
■J 


(1: 


had  occurred,  the  question  of  forminj;  such  a  nsw  Ck>nventioiT| 
and  the  appointment  of  the  delegates,  must  have  gone  into  the 
hands  of  new  assemblies ;  because  all  the  Legislatures  of  the 
New  England  states  would  have  been  dissolved,  and  there  would 
have  been  new  elections,  before  the  time  proposed  for  the  second 
convention.  And,  lastly,  it  is  matter  of  public  notoriety  that 
the  report  of  this  convention  produced  the  effect  of  assuaging  the 
public  sensibility,  and  operated  to  repress  the  vague  and  ardent 
expectations  entertained  by  many  of  our  citizens,  of  immediate 
and  effectual  relief,  from  the  evils  of  their  condition. 

We  pass  over  the  elaborate  exposition  of  constitutional  law  in 
the  President's  letter  having  no  call,  nor  any  inclination  at  this 
time  to  controvert  its  leading  principles.  Neither  do  we  com- 
ment upon,  though  we  perceive  and  feel,  the '  unjust,  and  we 
must  be  excused  for  saying,  insidious  mode  in  which  he  has 
grouped  together  distant  and  disconnected  occurrences,  which 
happened  in  his  absence  from  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
ducing, by  their  collocation,  a  glaring  and  sinister  effect  upon-the 
federal  party.  They  were  all  of  a  public  nature.  The  argu- 
ments concerning  their  merit  or  demerit  have  been  exhausted  ; 
and  time,  and  the  good  sense  of  an  intelligent  people,  will  place 
them  ultimately  in  their  true  light,  even  though  Mr  Adams  should 
continue  to  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  to  this  harmonious  reac- 
tion of  public  opinion. 

It  has  been  a  source  of  wonder  and  perplexity  to  many  in  our 
community,  to  observe  the  immense  difference  in  the  standards 
by  which' public  opinion  has  been  led  to  measure  the  saiLO  kind 
of  proceedings,  when  adopted  in  different  States.  No  pretence 
is  urged  that  any  actual  resistance  to  the  laws,  or  forcible  viola- 
tion of  the  constitutional  compact,  has  ever  happened  in  Massa- 
chusetts. Constitutional  questions  have  arisen  here  as  wgll  as  in 
other  States.  It  is  surprising  and  consolatory  that  the  number 
has  not  been  greater,  and  that  the  termination  of  them  has  not 
been  less  amicable.  To  the  discussion  of  some  of  them  great  ex- 
citement was  unavoidably  incident ;  but  in  comparing  cases  with 
causes  and  effects,  the  impartial  observer  will  perceive  nothing  to 
authorize  any  disparagement  of  this  State,  to  the  advantage  of 
the  pretensions  of  other  members  of  the  confederacy. 

On  this  subject  we  disclaim  the  purpose  of  instituting  invidious 
comparisons  ;  but  every  one  knows  that  Massachusetts  has  not 
been  alone  in  complaints  and  remonstrances  against  the  acts  of 
the  national  government.  Nothing  can  be  found  on  the  records 
of  her  legislative  proceedings,  surpassing  the  tone  of  resolutions 
adopted  in  other  States  in  reprobation  of  the  alien  and  sedition 
laws.  In  one  State  opposition  to  the  execution  of  a  treaty,  in 
others  to  the  laws  instituting  the  bank,  has  sounded  the  note  of 
preparation  for  resistance  in  more  impassioned  strains  than  were 
ever  adopted  here.  And  at  this  moment,  claims  of  State  rights, 
and  protests  against  the  measures  of  the  national  government,  in 


W. 


Ikh 


47 


lurins,  for  which  no  parallel  can  be  found  in  Massachusetts,  arc 
ushered  into  the  halls  of  Congress,  under  the  most  solemn  and 
imposing  forms  of  State  authority.     It  is  not  our  part  to  censure 
or  to  approve  these  proceedings.     Massachusetts  has  dune  noth* 
ing  Bt  any  time,  in  opposition  to  the  national  government,  and 
she  has  said  nothing  in  derogation  of  its  powers,  that  is  not  fully 
justified  by  the  constitution  ;  and  not  so  much  as  other  States 
have  said,  with  more  decided  emphasis ;  and,  as  it  is  believed, 
without  the  stimulus  of  the  same  actual  grievances.    We  are  no 
longer  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  prevalence  of  these  prejudices 
against  this  part  of  the  Union,  since  they  can  now  be  traced,  not 
only  to  calumnies  openly  propagated  in  the  season  of  bitter  con- 
tention by  irritated  opponents,  but  to  the  secret  and  hitherto  un- 
known  aspersions  of  Mr  Adams. 

Mr  Jefferson,  then  at  the  head  of  government,  declares  that 
the  effect  of  Mr  Adams'  communi«^ation  to  him  at  their  interview 
in  March,  1808,  was  such  on  his  mind,  as  to  induce  a  change  in 
the  system  of  his  administration.  Like  impressions  were  doubt- 
less made  on  Mr  Giles  and  others,  who  then  gave  direction  to  the 
public  sentiment.  Notwithstanding  these  disadvantages,  if  Mr 
Adams  had  not  seen  fit  to  proclaim  to  the  world  his  former  se- 
cret denunciation,  there  had  still  been  room  to  hope  that  those 
impressions  would  be  speedily  obliterated ;  that  odious  distinc- 
tions between  the  people  of  different  States  would  be  abolished  ; 
and  that  all  would  come  to  feel  a  comnicn  interest  in  referring 
symptoms  of  excitement  against  the  procedure  of  the  national 
government,  which  have  been  manifested  successively  on  so 
many  occasions,  and  in  so  many  States,  to  the  feelings,  which,  in 
free  governments,  are  always  roused  by  like  causes,  and  arc  char- 
acteristic, not  of  a  factious  but  a  generous  sensibility  to  real  or 
supposed  usurpation.  But  Mr  Adams  returns  to  the  charge  with 
new  animation ;  and  by  his  political  legacy  to  the  people  of 
Massachusetts,  undertakes  to  entail  upon  them  lasting  dishonor. 
He  reaffirms  his  convictions  of  the  reality  of  the  old  project,  per* 
sists  in  connecting  it  with  later  events,  and  dooms  himself  to  the 
vocation  of  proving  that  the  federal  party  were  either  traitors  or 
dupes.  Thus  he  has  again  (but  not  like  a  healing  angel)  trou- 
bled the  pool,  and  we  know  not  when  the  turbid  waters  will  sub 
side. 

It  must  be  apparent,  that  we  have  not  sought,  but  have  been 
driven  into  this  unexpected  and  unwelcome  controversy.  On 
the  restoration  of  peace  in  1815,  the  federal  party  felt  like  men, 
who,  as  by  a  miracle,  find  themselves  safe  from  the  most  appall- 
ing pcn7.  Their  joy  was  too  engrossing  to  permit  a  vindictive 
recurrence  to  the  causes  of  that  peril.  Every  emotion  of  animosi- 
ty was  permitted  to  subside.  From  that  time  until  the  appear- 
ance of  Mr  Adams'  publication,  they  had  cordially  joined  in  the 
general  gratulation  on  the  prosperity  of  their  country,  and  the 
security  of  its  institutions.     They  were  conscious  of  no  deviation 


•1« 


■a- 


iroMi. patriotic  duly,  in  nay  measure  wlieruiii  ttiey  had  acted,  or 
which  had  passed  with  their  approbation.  They  wore  not  only 
contented,  but  grateful,  in  the  prospect  of  the  duration  of  civil 
liberty,  according  to  tlie  forms  which  the  people  had  deliberately 
sanctioned.  These  objects  being  secured,  they  cheerfully  acqui- 
esced in  the  administration  of  government,  by  whomsoever  tho 
people  might  call  to  places  of  trust,  and  of  honor. 

With  such  sentiments  and  feelings,  the  public  cannot  but  par- 
ticipate in  the  astonishment  of  the  undersigned,  at  the  time,  the 
manner,  and  the  nature,  of  Mr  Adams'  publication.  We  make 
no  attempt  to  assign  motives  to  him,  nor  to  comment  on  such  as 
may  be  imagined. 

The  causes  of  past  controversies,  passing,  as  they  were,  to  ob- 
livion among  existing  generations,  and  arranging  themselves,  as 
they  must  do,  for  the  impartial  scrutiny  of  future  historians,  the 
revival  of  them  can  be  no  less  distasteful  to  the  public,  than  pain- 
ful to  us.  Yet,  it  could  not  be  expected,  that  while  Mr  Adams, 
from  his  high  station,  sends  forth  the  unfounded  suggestions  of 
his  imagination,  or  his  jealousy,  as  materials  for  present  opinion, 
and  future  history,  we  stiould,  by  silence^  give  countenance  to  his 
charges  ;  nor  that  we  should  neglect  to  vindicate  the  reputation 
of  ourselves,  our  associates,  and  our  Fathers. 


H.  G.  OTIS, 

ISRAEL  THORNDIKK, 

T.  H.  Perkins, 

WAI.  PRESCOTT,       , 
DANIEL  SARGENT, 
JOHN  LOWELL, 

Jioston,  January  '28,  1HS9. 


*f*- 


WM.  SULLIVAN, 

CHARLES  JACKSON, 

WARREN  DUrrON, 

BRNJ.  PICK  MAN, 

HENRY  CABOT, 

Son  of  the  lata  Goorm  Cthot. 
C.  C.  PARSONS, 

8mi  of  Thaopbiluf  Parioru,  Etq.  dccmatd. 


\m  I 


iH     ! 


i  * 


H ; 

n 


s 


I  •ulneribad  th*  foregoing  letter,  end  not  the  Repljr,  for  the  following  reatonii  Mr  Adamt 
in  hii  itatemont  publiihed  in  the  National  Intelligencer,  ipoke  of  the  leader*  of  the  Federal 
party,  in  the  year  1808  and  for  leveral  years  prjeimu,  ai  engaged  in  a  lyiiteniatie  oppoiition 
to  tno  general  gorernment,  haTing  for  ita  object  the  diiiolation  of  the  Union,  and  the  eitab- 
II  :hmont  of  a  separate  confederacy  by  the  aid  of  a  foreign  power.  As  a  proof  of  that  diapoai- 
tion,  particular  allnaion  is  made  to  the  oppoaition  to  the  embargo  In  the  Courts  of  Justice  in 
Massachusetts.  Thh  pointed  the  charge  directly  at  mj  late  father,  whose  eflbrts  in  that  cause 
are  probably  remembered  ;  and  was  the  reason  of  my  joining  in  the  application  to  Hr  Adams 
to  know  on  what  such  a  cliarge  was  founded.  If  this  construction  of  the  statement  needs  cen- 
firmation,  it  is  to  be  found  in  one  uf  the  totters  lately  published  in  Salem  a*  Sir  Adams's. 

Mr  Adams  in  his  nnswpr  has  extended  hiN  accusation  to  n  subsequent  period.  In  the  events 
nflhat  time  I  have  nut  the  same  interest  as  in  those  preceding  it ;  and  as  tho  Reply  was  ne- 
cessarily cu-cxtonsive  with  the  answer,  that  reason  jirevcntsdm*  from  joining  in  it.  I  take 
this  opportunity,  however,  to  say  for  myself,  that  I  find  in  Mr  Adams's  answer  no  justiflcation 
of  his  charges  ;  and,  in  reply  to  that  portion  of  his  letter  particularly  addressed  to  me,  that  1 
have  seun  no  proof,  and  shall  not  roadily  believe,  that  any  portion  of  my  father's  politics: 
course  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  influence  thera  SNggosted. 


Boston,  Januari/  2S,  1839. 


FRANKLIN  DEXTER. 


's» 


*. 


,  as 
the 


_*p- 


l  *  *■ 


>^,. 


'"T^'A 


